The Peasants of Ottobeuren, 1487-1726: A Rural Society in Early Modern Europe (Past and Present Publications)

This page intentionally left blank The Peasants of Ottobeuren, 1487–1726 A Rural Society in Early Modern Europe The P...

Author: Govind P. Sreenivasan

360 downloads 1589 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

This page intentionally left blank

The Peasants of Ottobeuren, 1487–1726 A Rural Society in Early Modern Europe The Peasants of Ottobeuren offers a new perspective on one of the enduring problems of early modern European history: the possibilities for economic growth and social change in rural society. As such it is the most detailed reconstruction of its kind to date, and one of the first to analyze the structure of land and credit markets, the character of rural commerce, and the internal economy of the peasant family. Based on the voluminous records of the Swabian Benedictine monastery of Ottobeuren, the book underscores the limitations of the traditional narrative of a sixteenth-century boom which foundered on the productive rigidities of the peasant economy and then degenerated into social crisis in the seventeenth century. Population growth did strain resources at Ottobeuren, but the peasantry continued to produce a sizable agricultural surplus. More importantly, peasants reacted to demographic pressure by deepening their involvement in land and credit markets, and more widely and aggressively marketing the fruits of their labor. Marriage and inheritance underwent a similar process of commercialization which made heavy demands on the peasantry, but which also produced a degree of social stability remarkably resilient to the devastations of war, plague, and famine. g o v i n d p. s r e e n i va s a n is Associate Professor of History, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Past and Present Publications General Editors: LY N DA L RO P E R , University of Oxford, and C H R I S W I C K H A M , University of Birmingham Past and Present Publications comprise books similar in character to the articles in the journal Past and Present. Whether the volumes in the series are collections of essays – some previously published, others new studies – or monographs, they encompass a wide variety of scholarly and original works primarily concerned with social, economic and cultural changes, and their causes and consequences. They will appeal to both specialists and non-specialists and will endeavour to communicate the results of historical and allied research in the most readable and lively form. For a list of titles in Past and Present Publications, see end of book.

The Peasants of Ottobeuren, 1487–1726 A Rural Society in Early Modern Europe

G OV I N D P. S R E E N I VA S A N

cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521834704 © Govind P. Sreenivasan 2004 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2004 isbn-13 isbn-10

978-0-511-21124-9 eBook (EBL) 0-511-21301-8 eBook (EBL)

isbn-13 isbn-10

978-0-521-83470-4 hardback 0-521-83470-8 hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

To my father, S. Ranga Sreenivasan, and to the memory of my mother, Claire de Reineck Sreenivasan

Contents

List of figures List of maps List of tables Acknowledgements Note on weights, measures, and currencies Introduction 1 Right and might (c. 1480–c. 1560)

page x xiii xiv xvi xvii 1 9

2 The discrete society (c. 1480–c. 1560)

51

3 A crisis of numbers? (c. 1560–c. 1630)

107

4 Integrity and the market (c. 1560–c. 1630)

155

5 Living on borrowed time (c. 1560–c. 1630)

204

6 To empty and to refill (c. 1630–c. 1720)

280

Conclusion

343

Bibliography Index of places General index

358 373 376

ix

Figures

1.1 Charters of the monastery of Ottobeuren in five-year intervals, 1450/4–1535/9 page 20 1.2 Distribution of Ottobeuren settlements by earliest documentary reference 21 1.3 Wealth distribution in nine Ottobeuren villages, 1525 43 1.4 Tax payments of Böhen households, 1546 49 2.1 Subdivision of the Höfe in the hamlet of Reuthen, 1440–1544 82 2.2 Subdivision of the Höfe of the Wagner family of Sontheim, 1484–1541 84 2.3 Subdivision of the Hof of the Kopp family of Attenhausen, 1473–1556 86 2.4 Rye prices in Memmingen and Frechenrieden, 1566–96 88 2.5 Range of variation in rye prices among four Ottobeuren villages, 1566–96 90 2.6 Temporal distribution of grain sales at Memmingen, 1488/9 and Ottobeuren, 1527/8 90 2.7 Rye disbursements of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1586/7 99 2.8 Price correlations in the Ottobeuren lands, 1569–96 104 3.1 Tithe receipts in Reuthen, 1544–1629 109 3.2 Tithes, rye prices, and burials in Westerheim, 1595–1625 116 3.3 Demographic balance in Westerheim, 1595–1625 117 3.4 Household numbers in selected Ottobeuren settlements, 1525–1620 119 3.5 Rye yield ratios in Bavaria, 1863 126 3.6 Estimated proportion of minimum grain requirement harvested in Hawangen-Moosbach, 1517–1629 128 x

List of figures 3.7 Estimated proportion of minimum grain requirement harvested in Frechenrieden, 1517–1629 3.8 Grain revenues of the monastery of Ottobeuren by source, 1536 3.9 Composition of the revenues of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1527/9 and 1619/21 3.10 Debts of the peasantry to the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1529–1623 3.11 Distribution of taxable wealth in nine Ottobeuren villages, 1525 and 1620 3.12 Structure of agricultural production in Ottobeuren parish, 1598–1601 4.1 Transfer and sale in the Ottobeuren Lehensreverse, 1545–75 4.2 Timing of kin transfers of Gotteshausrecht land, 1560–1621 4.3 Annual interest receipts of the chapels of St. Niklas and Our Blessed Lady, 1526–1606 4.4 Social distribution of the debtors of St. Niklas and Our Blessed Lady, 1586/7 4.5 Number of Schuldbriefe with obligatory eight-year debt clearance, 1500/4–1595/9 4.6 The debts and landholdings of Johann Teufel, 1613–27 5.1 Average weekly labor hiring by the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1618–21 5.2 Type of residence right granted to yielding heirs, 1580–4 and 1619–21 5.3 Legal migration at Ottobeuren, 1603–20 5.4 Percentage of female heirs by size of estate, 1603–21 5.5 Temporal distribution of rye sales at Ottobeuren, 1527/8–1622 5.6 Illegal exchanges outside of official marketplaces, 1580–1624 5.7 The products of illegal trade at Ottobeuren, 1615–27 6.1 Baptisms and adult burials in Westerheim, 1595–1635 6.2 Baptisms and adult burials in Egg, 1617–50 6.3 Outcome of 60 Pflegschaften debt cases, 1657 6.4 Alcohol excise receipts of the Böhen inn, 1655–90 6.5 The burden of “old debts” in the village of Böhen, 1669–74 6.6 Repayment of “old debts” by the peasants of Ottobeuren, 1671–1700

xi 128 135 139 142 146 153 176 177 181 182 193 195 216 226 230 246 270 273 277 288 289 299 303 304 305

xii

List of figures

6.7 The Vetter/Sauter families in Egg during the Thirty Years War 6.8 Timing of the transfer of Gotteshausrecht land at Ottobeuren, 1656–90 6.9 Origins of marriage partners in four Ottobeuren parishes, 1642–1702 6.10 Market tolls at Ottobeuren, 1656–1719 6.11 Composition of market tolls at Ottobeuren, 1698 6.12 Evolution of the Ottobeuren grain market, 1610–84 6.13 Range of variation in rye prices among four Ottobeuren villages, 1665–95 7.1 Tithe receipts in nine Ottobeuren villages, 1517–1707 7.2 Outstanding loans of the Sontheim parish church, 1585–1711

314 316 323 332 333 338 341 344 347

Maps

1 Southern Germany, c. 1620 2 The lands of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1620

page xviii xix

xiii

Tables

1.1 Transmission patterns for Gotteshausrecht Höfe at Ottobeuren, 1480–1549 page 23 1.2 Social status of Ottobeuren “radicals,” 1525 42 1.3 Mean tax payment in five Ottobeuren villages, 1546–8 47 3.1 Households and communicants in four Ottobeuren villages, 1586–1621 120 3.2 Population in five Ottobeuren villages, 1564–1620 122 3.3 Population of the lands of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1564–1890 123 3.4 Grain supply at Ottobeuren in the 1560s 130 3.5 Grain supply at Ottobeuren in the 1620s 131 3.6 Income of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1527/8 and 1528/9 134 3.7 Seigneurial dues as a proportion of the harvest at Ottobeuren, 1544 138 3.8 Finances of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1527/8–1620/1 138 3.9 Seigneurial dues as a proportion of the harvest at Ottobeuren, 1621 141 3.10 Estimated yields in eight Ottobeuren villages, c. 1620 147 3.11 Arable land per household in the Ottobeuren villages, 1620 149 3.12 Arable land per household in Ober- and Unterwesterheim, 1564/71 and 1620 150 3.13 Distribution of landholding in five Ottobeuren villages, 1544/6 150 4.1 Number of farms in the hamlets of Ottobeuren parish, 1584–1627 164 4.2 Social mobility at Ottobeuren, 1603/7–1627 197 xiv

List of tables 5.1 The financing of household property sales at Ottobeuren, 1603–21 5.2 The decline of common-property remarriage at Ottobeuren, 1580–1620 5.3 Mean inheritances at Ottobeuren, 1580–92 and 1610–19 6.1 Number of communicants in the Ottobeuren monastery lands, 1593–1707 6.2 Decline in population, tithes, and grain rents at Ottobeuren, 1625–50 6.3 Household size in three Ottobeuren villages, 1546/8 and 1695 6.4 Household composition at Hawangen, 1546/8 and 1707/8 6.5 Median age at first marriage at Westerheim, 1620–30 and 1690–9 6.6 Arable land per household in the Ottobeuren villages, 1689 6.7 Food supply at Ottobeuren in the 1680s and 1690s 6.8 Financing of household property sales at Ottobeuren, 1680–2 6.9 Immigration and settlement rates in Benningen, 1640–99 6.10 Social mobility at Ottobeuren, 1680/4–1704 7.1 Number of cows in nine Ottobeuren villages, 1620–1892 7.2 Mean moveable wealth and debts per household in nine Ottobeuren villages, 1620 and 1689 7.3 Annual volume of property sales and cash borrowing at Ottobeuren, 1580–1698 7.4 Girls’ names in three Ottobeuren villages, 1564–1710

xv 257 260 266 290 291 306 307 308 310 311 317 324 331 345 346 347 353

Acknowledgements

This book has occupied fifteen years of my life. It has been a good run. My interest in the peasants of early modern Europe was first kindled at McGill University by Pierre H. Boulle and Michael Perceval-Maxwell and the doctoral dissertation on which this book is based was generously supervised by Steven Ozment of Harvard University. The work could not have been undertaken without the assistance of the Archiv des Bistums Augsburg and the Stadtarchiv Memmingen; I was unfortunately unable to consult the holdings of the Klosterarchiv Ottobeuren due to its closure for renovations. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Archivdirektor Reinhard H. Seitz and the staff of the Staatsarchiv Augsburg, who put up with my virtually permanent residence in the reading room in 1991–2 and thereafter patiently bore my incessant requests for microfilm. Financial support for the research was provided by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, the Cornell Peace Studies Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Brandeis University. Along the way, Lawrence Duggan, Hermann Rebel, David Sabean, and Tom Scott offered invaluable advice and encouragement, and had Lyndal Roper not taken an interest in my project, it might never have gone to print. I also want to thank my dear friend Karl Dietrich for sustaining me in countless ways over the years, and my students at Brandeis University for insisting that the study of peasants be enlivened by stories. Milena Penta and Robert Dees kindly provided last-minute data on details I hadn’t had time to check. Above all, I am grateful to my family. My parents nurtured my interest in history from the very beginning, and my brothers and sisters have kept me sane. My children, Sujata and Vineet, have endured bedtime stories overpopulated with peasants and have cheerfully accepted a suspicious number of medievalthemed toys. Finally, I must apologize to my wife, Allison Dussias, for the want of words to thank her enough. She is the only person outside the Press who has read the entirety of the manuscript, and it owes more to her unfailing support, thoughtful criticism, and personal inspiration than she herself knows. Newton, Massachusetts xvi

Note on weights, measures, and currencies

During the sixteenth century, the most common unit of currency in the account books of the monastery was the Pfund Heller. The Pfund, or pound, was divided as follows: 1 pound (£) = 20 shillings (ß) = 240 pennies (d.) By the early seventeenth century, the pound had been replaced in the accounts by the Rheinische Gulden: 1 gulden = 1.75 pounds and 1 gulden (fl.) = 15 batzen = 60 kreuzer (kr.) = 480 heller (h.) Arable and wooded land was measured in jauchert, while meadow and garden land was measured in tagwerk. 1 Ottobeuren jauchert = 1 Ottobeuren tagwerk = 0.4224 hectares1 Grain was measured in malter, usually the malter of the nearby city of Memmingen. For the so-called “heavy grains,” i.e. wheat, rye, and kern (husked spelt): 1 malter = 8 viertel = 32 metzen For the “light grains,” i.e., oats and vesen (unhusked spelt): 1 malter = 17 viertel = 68 metzen For barley: 1 malter = 12 viertel = 48 metzen Also: 1 Memmingen malter = 2.1867 hectolitres2 1

2

Wilhelm Lochbrunner, “1550–1880: Ländliche Neuordnung durch Vereinödung,” Berichte aus der Flurbereinigung 51 (1984), p. 40. The jauchert and tagwerk were traditional measures of surface area in Swabia; they varied in size from territory to territory. Thomas Wolf, Reichsstädte in Kriegszeiten (Memmingen, 1991), p. 172 xvii

HESSE Frankfurt a.M.

•

•

Bamberg Würzburg

•

FRANCONIA

Speyer •

Nürnberg •

•

• Rothenburg o.d.T.

Heidelberg

HOHENLOHE Schwäbisch Hall•

Stuttgart

•

• Nördlingen

•

WÜRTTEMBERG

Strassburg

Ulm •

• Rottweil

Augsburg

LANDS OF THE MONASTERY OF OTTOBEUREN Babenhausen Mindelheim Memmingen• Leutkirch

• Lindau 0

20

40

60

80

Map 1 Southern Germany, c. 1620

100 km

BAVARIA Landsberg

Kaufbeuren

UPPER SWABIA Kempten

•

• ALLGÄU

PrinceBis h

Lauben

)

a Günz Erkheim n l Knaus g e Rummeltshausen in Schlegelsberg m Grabus m Holzgünz Unterwesterheim

fM i

ia var (Ba

e

dsh ip o

nds

Heimertingen

M

L or

eim elh nd

Fugger (Bo

Egg an der Günz

Niederrieden

o gsburg f Au

os a nd B

Schönegg

o ic

ab en

ds ) lan

pr

en us ha

Mem

Sontheim Oberwesterheim FREE IMPERIAL Trankelsberg Ungerhausen Attenhausen CITY OF MEMMINGEN Stephansried Köngetried Gumpratsried Hawangen Frechenrieden Wald Dennenberg Altisried Unteregg Benningen Eggesried Gottenau Wetzlen Herbishofen Frölins Langenberg Halbersberg OTTOBEUREN Rettenbach Betzisried Lachen Briechlins Oberegg Gut Guggenberg Eheim Ölbrechts Bossarts Oberböglins Engetried Hofs ds Klessen Schrallen Unterböglins Rempolz Reuthen Unterhaslach Leupolz Woringen Dietratried Oberhaslach Lordship of Stein Schöggels Hessen Bibelsberg (acquired 1749) Karlins Bühel Daßberg Ollarzried Niederdorf Brandholz Schoren Höhe Ronsberg Wolfertschwenden Hüners Nollen Oberried Fricken Theillen Schachen Böhen Waldmühle Vogelsang Berg Osterberg Ittelsburg Lampolz Grönenbach Jetzlins Günzegg Unterwarlins Oberwarlins n L min

ge

n

la

n

and

s of emp t h e P rin c e- Ab b o t o f K

te

LEGEND Ottobeuren village Ottobeuren hamlet “Foreign” village (selected)

Map 2 The lands of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1620

Major highway Watercourse 5 kilometres

Introduction

The specter haunting the historiography of early modern Europe is the specter of transition. To be sure, the relatively recent1 designation of the period c. 1450– c. 1750 as an era unto itself represented multiple intellectual currents, in the first instance a rising interest in social and economic (as opposed to religious and political) questions. At the same time, however, the definition of these centuries as the decisive and traumatic passage from a medieval to a modern world generated a literature pervaded by themes of crisis and revolution (agricultural, commercial, financial, military, scientific, etc.), culminating in a breakthrough variously defined as the beginnings of industrialization, the end of the economic ancien régime, or the transition from feudalism to capitalism.2 Of course, it was always recognized that economic growth was hardly a universal experience in early modern Europe, but this was accounted for by labeling some parts of the continent (the Mediterranean in general and Spain in particular) as examples of failed transitions and others (northwest Europe in general and England and the Netherlands in particular) as successes. Outcomes were bound to vary, it was 1

2

The first English-language textbook to frame sixteenth- and seventeenth-century European history in these terms was George Norman Clark’s Early Modern Europe from about 1450 to about 1720 (London, 1957). This periodization gained broad acceptance during the following decade, reflected by the inauguration (1970) of the “Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History.” The conception of an early modern period is much older in English historical linguistics, and dates back to the 1930s at least. The literature on the crisis is huge. The concept originated in Eric Hobsbawm’s “The General Crisis of the European Economy in the Seventeenth Century,” Past and Present 5 (1954), pp. 33–56 and 6 (1954), pp. 44–65. This article and others it inspired are collected in Trevor Ashton, ed. Crisis in Europe 1560–1660 (London, 1965); subsequent echoes in Geoffrey Parker and L. M. Smith, eds. The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century (London, 1978). Jan de Vries, The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis 1600–1750 (Cambridge, 1976) has been very influential. See also Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-System, Vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (San Diego, 1974) and Vol. II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy 1600–1750 (New York, 1980); Peter Kriedte, Peasants, Landlords and Merchant Capitalists, trans. V. R. Berghahn (Cambridge, 1983). A more recent contribution is Sheilagh C. Ogilvie, “Germany and the Seventeenth Century Crisis,” Historical Journal 35, 2 (1992), pp. 417–41. 1

2

the peasants of ottobeuren

felt, in such a wide-ranging struggle between the forces of growth and change and traditional social and economic limits. Over time, the transitional narrative of early modern social history has lost much of its initial coherence. First and foremost, fifty years of research have forced historians to acknowledge that the performance of the early modern European economy as a whole was sluggish at best.3 The special status claimed for these centuries has also been eroded from without, as a consensus emerges over the decidedly modest pace of economic growth during the early Industrial Revolution,4 while the turbulence of the later Middle Ages is now reframed as an episode of such “creative” destruction that there was virtually nothing left to be accomplished during the subsequent early modern era.5 Nevertheless, historians have been extremely hostile to the one attempt to face this conundrum squarely: Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie’s famous 1974 pronouncement that the quintessential feature of early modern European society was its “immobility,” that is, its inability to escape the limits to economic growth imposed by the technological backwardness of agriculture.6 Increasingly uncomfortable with an earlier insouciance in judging success and failure, scholars have in recent years preferred to reconceptualize early modern economic stagnation and depression as “readjustment,”7 while monographic investigations increasingly stress the adaptability, hard work, and above all the agency of all peasants and commoners.8 As the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries become an age in which everybody wins and all must have prizes while no fundamental social change occurs, textbooks have been at pains either to minimize differential economic performance and its 3

4

5

6 7

8

For a recent overview, see Jan Luiten van Zanden, “Early Modern Economic Growth: A Survey of the European Economy, 1500–1800” in Maarten Prak, ed., Early Modern Capitalism: Economic and Social Change in Europe, 1500–1800 (London, 2001), pp. 69–87. N. F. R. Crafts, “British Economic Growth, 1700–1831: A Review of the Evidence,” Economic History Review 36, 2 (1983), pp. 177–99; Jeffrey G. Williamson, “Why was British Growth so Slow during the Industrial Revolution?” Journal of Economic History 44, 3 (1984), pp. 687–712. See the seminal work of Stephan Epstein, in particular his Freedom and Growth: The Rise of States and Markets in Europe, 1300–1750 (London, 2000). Note his conclusion (p. 69) that “the late medieval crisis . . . may have marked the most decisive step in the continent’s long trajectory to capitalism and world hegemony.” L. R. Poos, A Rural Society after the Black Death: Essex, 1350–1525 (Cambridge, 1991) makes a different (but compelling) case against a sharp break between the later Middle Ages and the early modern period. Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie, “History that Stands Still,” [orig. pub. 1974] in The Mind and Method of the Historian, trans. Siân and Ben Reynolds (Chicago, 1981), pp. 11–27. See the essays collected in I. A. A. Thompson and Bartolomé Yun Casalilla, eds., The Castilian Crisis of the Seventeenth Century: New Perspectives on the Economic and Social History of Seventeenth-Century Spain (Cambridge, 1994), especially chapters 3–4. See, for example, Jürgen Schlumbohm, Lebensläufe, Familien, Höfe: die Bauern und Heuerleute des Osnabrückischen Kirchspiels Belm in proto-industrieller Zeit, 1650–1860 (Göttingen, 1994) and Liana Vardi, The Land and the Loom: Peasants and Profit in Northern France, 1680–1800 (Durham, 1993).

Introduction

3

9

causes, or even to eschew explanatory characterization altogether. Originally conceived as a fundamental hinge in European social history, the early modern period is now threatened with reduction to an arbitrary chronological convenience.10 The irony of this conceptual implosion is that the early modern period is gaining increased significance from the broader perspective of world history just as it loses its cachet within European history. That medieval Europe was no wealthier (and probably poorer) than the Islamic and East Asian worlds has long been known.11 It is now also becoming clear that the standard indices originally developed to gauge the economic performance of early modern Europe – life expectancy, urbanization levels, agricultural productivity, and so on – reveal no significant European lead over much of Asia before 1800.12 Yet unless one wishes to write off to historical accident the undeniable gulf in material prosperity which emerged between the West and “the Rest” during the nineteenth century,13 three crucial implications follow. First, the long-term causes of European economic primacy are to be sought in the early modern period. They are also to be sought within European society, since, for all the suffering it inflicted on the non-Western world, European colonialism never generated profits on a large enough scale to explain the Industrial Revolution.14 Second, whatever differentiated Western Europe as a whole from the non-Western world ultimately mattered more than regional variation within Western Europe.15 Finally, any discussion of the economic origins of the rise of the West will have to go beyond the question of technologies of production. Technical innovation did become 9 10

11

12 13

14

15

See, for example, Peter Musgrave, The Early Modern European Economy (Basingstoke, 1999) and Robert S. DuPlessis, Transitions to Capitalism in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1997). William J. Bouwsma, “The Renaissance and the Drama of Western History,” American Historical Review 84, 1 (1979), pp. 1–15 is a stimulating analysis of the similar fate befalling the concept of the Renaissance, itself a victim of the invention of the early modern period. The most important work in this kind of comparative history has been done by Angus Maddison. See in particular his The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective (Paris, 2001), Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run (Paris, 1998) and Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development: A Long-Run Comparative View (Oxford, 1991). See also Paul Bairoch, Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes (New York, 1993). Roy Bin Wong, China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of European Experience (Ithaca, 1997). As in Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: Europe, China, and the Making of the Modern World Economy (Princeton, 2000). For an insightful critique of some of the excesses of anti-Eurocentrism, see Ricardo Duchesne, “Between Sinocentrism and Eurocentrism: Debating Andre Gunder Frank’s Re-Orient: Global Economy in the Asian Age,” Science and Society 65, 4 (Winter) (2001–2), pp. 428–63. Patrick O’Brien, “European Economic Development: The Contribution of the Periphery,” Economic History Review 35, 1 (1982). See also his “The Foundations of European Industrialization: From the Perspective of the World,” Journal of Historical Sociology 4, 3 (1991), pp. 288–317. Philip C. C. Huang, The Peasant Economy and Social Change in North China (Stanford, CA, 1985), pp. 9–10.

4


the hallmark of European economic superiority, but the origins of that superiority in an era of technological stagnation suggest that a history of innovation depends on a prior history of incentives and institutions.16 In my own view, the question of early modern social transition has been encumbered by an unfortunate fixation on the technology of production, which was in no small part derived from post-war models of Third World economic development. The problem started with the perfectly correct observation that industrial societies have more efficient technologies of production than preindustrial societies, allowing the former to produce necessary goods (above all food) in far greater amounts and with far fewer workers than the latter. Industrial societies thereby free a great many people to produce luxuries, offer services, and do all of the other things that make the industrialized world an allegedly better place to live. Indeed, industrial societies have a lot more people, period, than pre-industrial societies. Now, in the particular context of early modern Europe, two empirically irrefutable observations played a key role in ushering in the preoccupation with productive technology. First, Europe was in these centuries an overwhelmingly rural society operating at (by modern standards) a rather modest level of technical efficiency (especially in agriculture). Second, early modern Europe seems to have experienced considerable difficulties in sustaining the people that it did have. From the last decades of the sixteenth century onwards, historians have documented soaring increases in food prices, slumps in long-distance trade and industrial production, the multiplication of plagues and famines, and demographic stagnation or even decline in region after region all over the continent. It was thus an easy step to conclude that a biological ceiling was imposed by these technological shortcomings, a ceiling lifted only with the advent of modern science and technology during the Enlightenment. Having reached this at least initially plausible (and far from preposterous) conclusion, historians then began hunting – all too often in vain, as it turned out17 – for the surge in productivity and production that allowed early modern Europe to escape the constraints of the biological ceiling. The unexamined assumption of this Malthusian vision of early modern social history (associated in particular with a group of French scholars known as the 16

17

Which is not to say that every specific invention was directly produced by its institutional context or that context can explain the timing of what have been called “macroinventions.” Joel Mokyr, The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress (New York, 1990). Also N. F. R. Crafts, “Macroinventions, Economic Growth, and ‘Industrial Revolution’ in Britain and France,” Economic History Review 48, 3 (1995), pp. 591–8; David S. Landes, “Some Further Thoughts on Accident in History: A Reply to Professor Crafts,” Economic History Review 48, 3 (1995), pp. 599–60. Michel Morineau, Les faux-semblants d’un démarrage e´ conomique: agriculture et démographie en France au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1971) is a classic investigation.

Introduction

5

18

Annales school) is that the technological capacity for increased production itself called into being the necessary institutions and practices to distribute surpluses and allow for economic specialization and development. This assumption, if I may be forgiven the metaphor, puts the cart before the horse. The argument here is that secure and transferable property rights, dense market networks, and the widespread use of money and credit were essential prerequisites for any dramatic gains in agricultural production.19 Furthermore, I would contend, the pervasion of both the individual peasant household and rural society as a whole by market relations amounted to a genuine social and even cultural transformation, independent of the subsequent realization of increased productivity.20 It will of course be objected that nobody really believes in the original Malthusian model any more, and furthermore that there is no reason to revive an outdated Marxist preoccupation with the transition between various historical modes of production. Surely the prudent course would be to content ourselves with the position that the early modern economy was never completely stationary, but grew very slowly in the very long term with so much regional variation that any analytical generalizations are hazardous. Prudent, yes, but deeply disingenuous as well. In the first place, such an approach refuses honest engagement with the mass of accumulated evidence that something began to go seriously wrong with the early modern European economy at the end of the sixteenth century. Even in the case of England, the most credible early modern success story, fourteenthcentury levels of population and agricultural productivity would not be exceeded until after 1750.21 In the same way, recent efforts to rehabilitate the agrarian economy of early modern France have produced an overall picture strikingly similar to LeRoy Ladurie’s conclusion that “For [all] the apparent movement, things had really stayed much the same.”22 If the fate of all grand historical 18

19

20

21

22

For overviews of the work of this school, see Peter Burke, The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School, 1929–89 (Stanford, CA, 1990) and Philippe Carrard, Poetics of the New History: French Historical Discourse from Braudel to Chartier (Baltimore, 1992). This is not to deny the often reciprocal relation between institutions and technical change, but when all qualifications have been made I still incline towards the logical priority of the former. See in this regard Mark Overton, Agricultural Revolution in England: The Transformation of the Agrarian Economy 1500–1850 (Cambridge, 1996), esp. pp. 146–7, 203–7. On this subject the work of Jan de Vries is indispensable, in particular his “The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution,” Journal of Economic History 54, 2 (1994), pp. 249–70 and “Between Purchasing Power and the World of Goods: Understanding the Household Economy in Early Modern Europe” in John Brewer and Roy Porter, eds., Consumption and the World of Goods (London, 1993), pp. 85–132. Bruce M. S. Campbell and Mark Overton, “A New Perspective on Medieval and Early Modern Agriculture: Six Centuries of Norfolk Farming c. 1250–c. 1850,” Past and Present 141 (1993), pp. 38–105. LeRoy Ladurie, “History that Stands Still,” p. 21. Philip T. Hoffman, Growth in a Traditional Society: The French Countryside, 1450–1815 (Princeton, 1996) is an impressive

6


theories is either falsification or banality, it is surely the latter which has befallen the Annales school. Much more seriously, by retaining the traditional analytic categories while disputing the numbers, the gradualist continuity narrative perpetuates an older expectation of where to look for meaningful social change and thereby impedes appreciation of those significant developments which did occur, but outside the realm of output statistics. I therefore offer this book as an effort to reconcile the impressive empirical basis of the Malthusian scenario with its inherently implausible implication that most of Europe experienced no significant social change in the two centuries after 1560. This is, in other words, an effort to redeem the old question of the transition from feudalism to capitalism,23 and the key to that redemption is to reconsider the terms originally used to frame the project of social transition. Recent work in development economics is highly suggestive here, as it is an open secret that the traditional neoclassical economic model is powerless to explain the gross disparities of material well-being which persist in the world today. In a world of frictionless exchange, inefficient practices and groups should rapidly be weeded out and replaced by more efficient competitors. That this has not, in fact, taken place underscores the problems of co-ordination and inclusion in human societies, problems heavily influenced by the structure of property rights and exchange practices.24 The essential precondition for realizing the potential of innovative productive technologies is a reliable, dense and broadly based network of socio-economic exchanges. Hindrances to such a network can be social, economic, or cultural, and the shift from a fragmented to a networked society is likely to be a complicated, drawn-out, but very significant process. Furthermore, I would argue, one of the most helpful ways to follow these changes concretely is to look at the inscription of human activity in time and space. That the time–space constitution of human activity is no mere backdrop, but rather an essential part of what those activities are is hardly an idea original to myself, and has become a commonplace in recent theoretical sociology (associated in particular with the

23

24

critique of the Annales vision, but its conclusion that growth averaged one half percent per annum, was confined to selected regions, and was vulnerable to erasure in times of crisis qualifies but hardly shatters the argument advanced by Morineau in 1971. Recent quantitative analysis of French demographic and price data confirms a close correlation between grain prices and mortality during the seventeenth century. See David R. Weir, “Life under Pressure: France and England 1670–1870,” Journal of Economic History 44, 1 (1984), pp. 27–48. The modern discussion began with the debate (1950–2) in Science and Society; the relevant articles are collected in Paul Sweezy, Maurice Dobb, Kohachiro Takahashi, et al., The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism (London, 1978). See also R. J. Holton, The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism (Basingstoke, 1985). I must here acknowledge a considerable theoretical debt to the work of Douglass C. North, in particular his Structure and Change in Economic History (New York, 1981) and Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge, 1990).

Introduction

7

25

work of Anthony Giddens). On the other hand, the extension of this insight to historical research has almost exclusively focused on the industrial era and on the transformation of experience by technological, rather than institutional, change.26 For the early modern period, the latter was the more important vector and receives correspondingly more attention here. The argument that superficial continuities of form can conceal dramatic shifts in underlying mechanisms also governed the choice of the region for investigation: the lands of the Benedictine monastery of Ottobeuren, located in the countryside of Upper Swabia amid the political confetti of the German southwest. No serious scholar would advance Germany, and least of all its agrarian sector, as an economic “leader” in early modern Europe, and German industrialization was late by West European standards.27 In world historical perspective, however, the rapidity with which the late nineteenth-century German economy – and German agriculture, too28 – caught up with England and the Low Countries seems rather more significant than Germany’s late start. Bavaria clearly had rather more in common with Belgium than it ever did with Bengal, and I find the long-term convergence in the social history of Western Europe a rather more compelling concern than the narrower question “Why was England first?”29 And yet, although research on the early modern German peasantry has accelerated dramatically in recent years,30 it is the political relations between subject and overlord which have commanded most attention. Material life looms rather larger in this account of a region – usually known as the Allgäu – which never industrialized, and which in modern Germany is notable primarily for its 25

26

27

28 29

30

See his Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis (Berkeley, CA, 1979); A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Vol. I: Power, Property and the State (Berkeley, CA, 1981); The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge, 1984). Also suggestive is Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford, 1991). E. P. Thompson, “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism,” Past and Present, 38 (1967), pp. 56–97 and Wolfgang Schivelbusch, The Railway Journey: The Industrialization of Time and Space in the 19th Century (Berkeley, CA, 1986) have been enormously influential in different ways. See also Stephen Kern, The Culture of Time and Space 1880–1918 (Cambridge, MA, 1983). Hubert Kiesewetter, “Zur Dynamik der regionalen Industrialisierung in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert: Lehren für die Europäische Union?” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1 (1992), pp. 79–112 and Richard Tilly, “German Industrialization and Gerschenkronian Backwardness,” Rivista di Storia Economica 6, 2 (1989), pp. 139–64. Patrick K. O’Brien and Leandro Prados de la Escosura, “Agricultural Productivity and European Industrialization, 1890–1980,” Economic History Review 45, 3 (1992), pp. 514–36. Moreover, given the current relative economic strengths of Britain and Germany, one might feel justified in suggesting that at least in the long run, first is not necessarily best. In this regard see P. K. O’Brien, “Path Dependency, or Why Britain Became an Industrialized and Urbanized Economy Long Before France,” Economic History Review 49, 2 (1996), pp. 213–49. The best recent introductions are the relevant volumes of the Enzyklopädie Deutscher Geschichte, in particular André Holenstein, Bauern zwischen Bauernkrieg und Dreißigjährigem Krieg (Munich, 1996) and Werner Trossbach, Bauern 1648–1806 (Munich, 1993).

8


impenetrable dialect and conservative politics. Usually overlooked in the contemporary perception of the Allgäu is its unusually resilient agrarian economy31 and its unusual agrarian history: during the early modern period the Allgäu became the bread-basket for the industrialization of neighboring Switzerland. The peasants of Ottobeuren clearly figured something out. This is their story.

31

In an economic climate where German farmers are increasingly dependent on supplementary byemployment, the region boasts one of the highest proportions of full-time farms in the country. Geoff A. Wilson and Olivia J. Wilson, German Agriculture in Transition: Society, Politics and Environment in a Changing Europe (Basingstoke, 2001), pp. 31–5.

1. Right and might (c. 1480–c. 1560)

History does not record when Anna Maier was born; neither does it record when she died.1 It does pay rather closer attention to her older brother Johann, who entered the world perhaps two years before his sister in November of 1486, and predeceased her by at least twenty-five years in February of 1543. Both siblings grew up in the Upper Swabian village of Egg, in what is now part of the German province of Bavaria, and was then the lordship of the Benedictine monastery of Ottobeuren. Johann left Egg at the age of eight to be schooled by his uncle Martin Maier, a priest in the city of Rottenburg. The boy went on to study philosophy, law, and theology at the universities of Heidelberg, Cologne and Freiburg, changed his name to Johann Eck, and rose to fame (and notoriety) as the theologian who locked horns with Martin Luther at the Leipzig disputations of 1519.2 As for Anna, whose story this is, she remained in Egg and inherited the family farm. The Hof, as a large farm like this was called, had originally been held by Anna’s grandfather. It came to her father, Michael Maier, in 1483,3 and sometime around the year 1515 passed to her husband, Thoma Schaupp.4 It was 1

2

3 4

Anna is not among the four children listed with her parents in Staatsarchiv Augsburg [hereinafter StAA], Kloster Literalien [hereinafter KL] Ottobeuren 601-I, “Leibeigenbuch 1486/7,” f. 21r. The original dating of this MS. to c. 1450–80 is incorrect. Through a close comparison with the monastery’s charters, I have found that the register must have been drawn up sometime between November 1486 and May 1487. This redating has been accepted by the Staatsarchiv Augsburg (personal communication 13 July 1998). Theodor Wiedmann, Dr. Johann Eck, Professor der Theologie an der Universität Ingolstadt (Regensburg, 1865), pp. 425–31 remains the most detailed treatment of Johann Eck’s family. For a more recent, though in this regard derivative work, see Max Ziegelbauer, Johannes Eck: Mann der Kirche im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung (St. Ottilien, 1987), pp. 3–11. Neither of these discusses Eck’s family on the basis of manuscript sources. StAA, Kloster Urkunden [hereinafter KU] Ottobeuren 414 [1 Nov. 1483]. Thoma Schaupp’s charter of admission has not survived. There is, however, a record of Michael Maier’s retirement from farming and the associated maintenance agreement between him and Schaupp in StAA, KU Ottobeuren 973 [16 Aug. 1524]. By this time Schaupp already held the Hof. Note that since Anna was not born before 1488, she is unlikely to have married earlier than 1513. 9

10


the largest Hof in Egg, measuring some 110 jauchert or 46.5 hectares,5 and it instantly made Anna’s household one of the richest in the village.6 With wealth came social status: Anna’s father served as village Amman, or mayor, until his death in 1525, and the office would subsequently be handed along with the Hof to Anna’s husband.7 Retaining that position of wealth and prominence, on the other hand, turned out to be more of a struggle. Thoma Schaupp died during the later 1520s, whereupon Anna took to husband a certain Simon Bürklin. Simon’s death in 1533 again left Anna a widow, but she soon remarried, this time to Jerg Wagner.8 Quite apart from the attendant emotional strain, these repeated losses imposed serious fiscal pressure on Anna’s household. In law, the Hof was never owned outright by any of those who farmed it. Instead, formal ownership remained with the monastery, which leased the Hof to each new (male) tenant for the term of his life. As a woman, Anna could not lease the Hof by herself, and thus could not remain a widow if she wanted to stay on the property. It did not matter that Anna had been born on the Hof; each remarriage required a new lease to the “new” tenant. And at each new grant, the monastery exacted a hefty transfer fee, known as Erdschatz. Three Erdschatz payments within twenty-five years was a great deal of money, especially since Anna had so many children – a 1548 census lists her with eight9 – to care for. The repeated Erdschatz charges seem to have been a source of considerable anger to Anna’s family. Her brother Johann Eck, now far away in Ingolstadt, took time from his polemics against the Reformation to write several letters to the Ottobeuren monk and humanist Nikolaus Ellenbog, sometimes asking for Ellenbog’s intercession with the Abbot on behalf of Eck’s relatives,10 and 5

6

7

8

9 10

The size and size rank of the Hof are documented in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 102, “Steuerbuch 1620,” ff. 272r–294v. The Maierhof is the first property listed. The earliest (1575) measurement of the Hof’s surface area is recorded in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, “Erdschatzbuch 1576–1603” (sic), f. 228r. For Thoma Schaupp’s wealth see StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 2 “Generalrechnung 1529.” This document has been mislabeled; it is in fact a tax register drawn up in 1525. The returns from Egg are on ff. 26r–29r; Thoma Schaupp is assessed 8.5 gulden on f. 28v. For Michael Maier’s service as Amman see Ziegelbauer, Johannes Eck, p. 3. For the wealth and service as Amman of Anna’s third husband, Jerg Wagner, see StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, “Steuerregister 1546,” f. 17r. Simon Bürklin is mentioned as holding the Egg Maierhof in 1530. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, “Rotulus Probationum Tomus IV,” Document 309C, ff. 1131r–1137r (Urfehdebrief of Caspar Maÿr of Egg [4 Apr. 1530]). The ‘Rotulus Probationum’ is an enormous multi-volume compilation of document copies drawn up in 1616 in connection with a lawsuit. Jerg Wagner’s 1533 admission to the Maierhof is recorded in StAA KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 225r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 600, “Leibeigenbuch 1548,” f. 188r. Nikolaus Ellenbog, Briefwechsel, edited by Andreas Bigelmair and Friedrich Zoepfl, Corpus Catholicorum 19/21 (Münster in Westfalen, 1938), VI/28, pp. 320–1; Johann Eck to Nikolaus Ellenbog, 23 Apr. 1533. Eck wrote “Caeterum sororem meam commendo tibi et conventui,” but promptly warned “faciatis, quod aequum est, ne provocetis Eckium ad ea, a quibus semper pro honore monasterii abstinuit.”

Right and might (c. 1480–c. 1560)

11

sometimes raging that “in dealing with my relatives your Abbot has always not only greatly humiliated them but also despised them.”11 One way or another, Anna and her third husband managed not only to stay solvent, but even to prosper,12 and Jerg Wagner remained the tenant of both her family’s ancestral Hof and the village inn in Egg for thirty-two years. Matters took a turn for the worse when Wagner died in 1565.13 Concerned that the properties should remain inside the kin group, the family enlisted the help of Anna’s half-brother, Simon Thaddeus Eck, who was also the chancellor of the Duke of Bavaria. Simon Thaddeus approached Abbot Caspar Kindelmann and asked that Anna’s son Sebastian Wagner, already married and with children,14 be admitted to both holdings.15 The Abbot agreed, and Sebastian’s admission duly took place on 2 July, but the terms of the lease had been modified in several significant respects. First, although Sebastian was granted tenure of the Hof for the term of his life, his lease on the inn was only for one year at a time. Second, although the grain rent for the properties remained unchanged at 10 malter, the cash rent was increased by 2 gulden. Finally, the Erdschatz, or entry fine for the admissions, was set at 200 gulden. The family was furious. Chancellor Eck dispatched a blistering letter to the Abbot, protesting the “high and unheard of ” level of the Erdschatz, which he feared would ultimately drive his nephew into bankruptcy and oblige him to give up the property. Eck pointed out that “this Hof has now been received for the fourth time for a life term by my sister’s family . . . and the three [previous] times hardly more than half as much was taken as what has now been [taken] by Your Grace.” After a devastating fire, Eck added, Anna’s family had put more than a thousand gulden as well as enormous “work and effort, also hard sweat” into rebuilding the Hof, improving it greatly. His sister’s heirs, Eck declared, 11

12

13 14

15

Eck to Ellenbog, 8 Sep. 1534 in Ellenbog, Briefwechsel, VI/67, pp. 335–6. “Moleste semper tuli ac peracerbe . . . abbatem tuum multis illicibus ad amicitiam mei pertractum illam semper fortiter abiecisse non modo, verum etiam comtempsisse . . .” Eck took all of this as a personal affront, and went on to claim “quod enim contra sororium meum tam acriter egit, omnia eo videbantur tendere, ut contemptum mei parerent, et hoc quidem absque ullo meo demerito.” In an earlier letter Eck had likened the Abbot of Ottobeuren to Phalaris, the Greek tyrant of Agrigentum (c. 570–554 BC) who burned his victims in a bull of bronze. Eck to Ellenbog, 21 Dec. 1532 in ibid., VI/25, pp. 318–18. Jerg Wagner had no debts to the monastery in 1543: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 409, “Baudingbuch 1543,” ff. 12r–14v. The 1544 rent roll also records no rent arrears, although Wagner was slightly behind in a tithe payment. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, “Gültbuch 1544,” ff. 146r–147r. He ranked third of 77 households (i.e. in the top 5.2 percent) by taxable wealth in 1546. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 17r–21r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 227r. Sebastian married a certain Ursula Maier in 1561. See the retrospective record of their marriage in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 903, “Briefprotokolle 1603–7,” f. 103r (Freibrief of their son Sebastian junior [28 July 1604]). The couple are recorded with two children in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 25, ehemaliger Münchner Bestand [hereinafter Mü.B.], “Leibeigenbuch 1564,” f. 194. The documents relating to this case are all contained in StAA, Kloster Akten [hereinafter KA] Ottobeuren 86, “Besitz- und Bestandverhältnisse zu Egg 1566–1622.”

12


deserved the grace and favor of the Abbot, and he was incensed “that . . . the rightful heirs [sic!] should be expelled from their ancient paternal home and [that] the same [home] thereafter should be given to other selfish people, who secretly by means of money and other evil practices expel their neighbors from house and home.”16 Abbot Caspar was unmoved by this missive and conceded nothing. He felt he had been generous, and that Eck ought more properly to have sent him a letter of thanks. The year-to-year lease for the inn was a long-standing tradition. Regarding the money invested by Anna’s family in the burned-out Hof, the Abbot declared that “the damage and building costs were nowhere near as high as you imagine, [and] as for all of the wood [for the reconstruction], he [Anna’s husband, Jerg Wagner] received the same gratis and at no cost from us and from our village community, not to mention the fifty gulden in rebuilding assistance also given to him by us.” As for the claim that your grandparents and in-laws made good use of this Hof, they did nothing more than what they were required to do according to the lease and charter of admission, for the land and fields are of such a nature that if cared for as they should be, they require no improvement. It may well be that it [i.e. the land] was well cared for [literally “helped”] by yourself and your deceased brother[-in-law], and that they [i.e. Anna’s family] also thereby derived great wealth. Whether, however, the said [wealth] was applied to the improvement of the property or to [a] costly and excessive lifestyle, this should become clear upon a thorough investigation of the matter. The Abbot claimed that the Hof annually yielded more than 150 malter of grain and 30 to 40 gulden worth of hay. It could easily bear an Erdschatz payment of even 400 gulden. That Eck’s relatives had farmed the Hof for so long in no way entitled them to be spared an increase in the entry fine. On the contrary, “for experience has repeatedly shown, that where a . . . life-term property remains for too long with one kin-group [geschlecht] without any increase in the rent and entry fine, the tenant may ultimately claim [to hold] the said life-term property as a heritable property [Erblehen].”17 This, clearly, was the heart of the matter, for the monastery could already look back on more than a century of dispute with its subjects over purported heritability of the large, life-term Höfe. Thus, what Simon Thaddeus saw as a threatened dispossession of his nephew was for the Abbot an essential safeguard against being dispossessed himself. Though never formally acknowledged, a modus vivendi was worked out in the end. The monastery retained formal ownership and the right to set entry fines 16

17

Ibid., Simon Eck to the Abbot of Ottobeuren [17 July 1565]. Eck was right about the size of the entry fine; the Erdschatz register records no fines this high before 1565. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27. StAA, KA Ottobeuren 86, undated draft of the Abbot’s response to Simon Eck.


13

at will, while in practice the Hof would continue to be handed down within the same family. Anna’s son Sebastian held the property until his premature death in 1575. After the manner of Anna herself, who is last mentioned in 1568,18 Sebastian’s widow, Ursula Maier, quickly remarried, to one Michael Schütz.19 And although the Hof was again saddled with an Erdschatz payment of 200 gulden, Abbot Caspar’s assessment of its carrying capacity seems to have been correct: Schütz, his wife, and then later his second wife20 would farm it successfully for more than fifty years.21 Just as the Hof had supported the affluence and status of Anna and her children, so it would do for her grandchildren. Michael Wagner become a provost and archdeacon of Garsch in Bavaria. Johann Wagner studied at the University of Ingolstadt and rose to the position of senior judge in Bamberg and Kastner ¨ of Neu-Otting. Jerg Wagner was educated in the Ottobeuren monastery school and became a ducal advocate in Landshut.22 Catharina Wagner married the innkeeper of nearby Unterwesterheim, became a respected member of village society and served as godmother to at least thirty-one children.23 Altogether, Anna’s grandchildren received inheritances from the Hof totalling well over a thousand gulden.24 What is the value of Anna Maier’s story? It adds detail to the family history of a minor Reformation figure. It also provides dramatic, albeit anecdotal evidence on the possibilities of peasant social mobility during the fifteenth and sixteenth 18

19 20

21

22 23

24

She is described as still alive in a letter from Chancellor Eck to the Bishop of Augsburg, dated 9 April 1568 in StAA, KA Ottobeuren 86. Eck was at this date still trying to enlist help against the Abbot of Ottobeuren, complaining that the Abbot should have had proper regard for (among other things) the fact that “my dear deceased brother Doctor Johann Eck worked so truly for the Christian church.” The remarriage is documented in the inheritance arrangements Schütz concluded with his stepchildren in 1583 and 1584. See the sources cited below at note 22. Schütz’s second marriage is documented in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 903, ff. 268r–269r, Heiratsbrief [19 Nov. 1606]. The fee he paid for this exogamous marriage (i.e. his wife was not an Ottobeuren serf) is recorded in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 583, “Verhörgefälle 1581–1632,” Heft 24 (1607–8). Transfer of tenancy and Erdschatz payment dated 29 July 1575 in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 228r. Michael Schütz is listed as tenant of the Hof in both StAA KL Ottobeuren 39, “Gültbuch 1606,” f. 39r and StAA, KL Ottobeuren 225, “Kornrechnungen 1621/2,” f. 102r (this account also includes a rent roll). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 901, “Amtsprotokolle 1583–4,” ff. 31v (Schuldbrief [14 June 1583]) and 146r–v (Schuldbrief [4 Dec. 1584]). According to StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 187v, Jacob Amman was admitted to the inn on 6 June 1593. The marriage probably took place in that year. It is in any case documented in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 903, f. 271v (Quittung [29 Nov. 1606]), whereby Jacob Amman, husband of Catharina Wagner, confirms the receipt of 50 gulden from Michael Schütz of Egg “in Abschlag seiner Schuldtsuma sein dreÿen Stiefsohn.” For Catharina’s prominence as a godmother between 1595 and 1625, see the Westerheim parish register [hereinafter West PR], Vol. I, pp. 3–66. She died in February of 1633 (ibid., Vol. I, p. 123). See the final accounting in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 903, ff. 240r–241r (two Schuldbriefe [16 June 1606]).

14


centuries. The real significance of the foregoing account, however, is the way in which it must be told, and indeed the fact that it can be told at all. From the middle of the fifteenth century, the Ottobeuren peasantry intrudes into the historical record in ever larger numbers. Not as an amorphous subject population, but as individuals, with names and deeds and life stories. Moreover, they appear to us not from the narratives of monastic chroniclers or the illustrations of illuminated manuscripts, but from property records. Every single document used to reconstruct the lives of Anna Maier and her kin – whether a tenancy charter, a letter of appeal to the Bishop of Augsburg, an Erdschatz register, or a notarial protocol – was drawn up in connection with property. The fact that it is property which, somewhat abruptly, offers a window on to the lives of late medieval Swabian peasants needs more than a passing acknowledgment. It behooves us to ask why the window appears, and why just then? Property also mattered at least as much to Anna’s family then as it does to the historian now. The Hof in Egg was the foundation of who the Maiers were and what they ultimately made of themselves. And as far as can be told from the irate correspondence of two family members, they needed no reminding of this. Finally, it must also be emphasized that the “window” of property records is deceptively clear. Much more is known of the Maier family than of their poorer, less propertied neighbors. Even within the family, some members are much more prominent in the records than others. Indeed, the irony of Maier family history is that, although Anna was the genealogical linchpin of the various personal dramas bound up with the fate of the Hof, she never appears on stage herself. She received no charters, she appears in no rent rolls or tax books, and she is never even mentioned by name in her brothers’ epistolary tirades. Were it not for the Ottobeuren law that children derived their legal status from their mothers (as a result of which the monastery’s serf registers kept track of both genders), and the Upper Swabian custom that women retained their surnames at marriage, she would have been invisible in the midst of her own story (Eck’s biographers didn’t even know her name). To tell the history of the Ottobeuren peasantry, we may be obliged to begin with property. Due regard must, however, be given not just to the fact and origin of the property relation, but also to the way in which the relation was used and contested, and to those whom the relation excluded. Peasant property rights emerged at Ottobeuren at the end of the Middle Ages as part of a transformation of the monastery’s land tenure system. The term “system” is in fact rather misleading, for in contrast to much better-organized ecclesiastical territories elsewhere in the German southwest, Ottobeuren landlordship at the beginning of the fourteenth century was decidedly unsystematic.25 The monastery lands were granted out in large chunks 25

There is a brief overview in Josef Heider, “Grundherrschaft und Landeshoheit der Abtei Ottobeuren: Nachwirkungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,” Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige 73, 2–4 (1962), pp. 63–95, at pp. 63–7.


15

to lower nobiliar vassals known as ministeriales, who in turn leased out landholdings to the peasants as they saw fit.26 The ministeriales seem to have been responsible for collecting rents from the peasants and then turning over some proportion to the monastery, but the monks never exercised much oversight over the process. The mediated character of the relation between the monastery and its subjects means that the (few) surviving documents from this period tell us very little about the mechanics of land tenure. It does seem clear that this was not a system based on written rules or documents (which is itself not insignificant). It was – at least superficially – a rather cheap system that required very little in the way of an administrative apparatus. It was also, however, a system with serious problems. The ministeriales were a quarrelsome and intractable lot, rather like the monks themselves, only more so. As vassals, they were in the habit of hiving off sections of the monastery’s lands into their own private possession, and spoliating the monastery’s remaining properties. The “system” offered no formal rights or guarantees to the hapless peasantry, whose relations with their aggressive immediate overlords can only be imagined. Even an abbot who insisted too forcefully on the rights and prerogatives of the monastery could be subject to violent reprisals. This was spectacularly demonstrated in the early fifteenth century, when Abbot Eggo’s refusal to pay extra monies to one Friedrich of Ellerbach led to his assassination in 1416.27 Indeed, the main reason the monks began assiduously collecting papal and imperial privileges in the twelfth century (and equally assiduously forging privileges from the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries) was to protect the monastery’s possessions from the depredations of its own vassals.28 Paradoxically, however, a much more serious danger was that, in the long run, the lineages of the ministeriales tended either to bankrupt themselves, or to die out altogether. This opened the door for other competitors – above all the burghers and municipal institutions of the nearby free imperial city of Memmingen – to buy up the lands of the ministeriales, and thereby honeycomb the Ottobeuren lands with a rival and more durable source of power and authority. During the fourteenth and especially the fifteenth century, therefore, the monks were forced to buy back lands both from their own 26

27 28

The multi-layered structure of land tenure in this period can be glimpsed from charters in which a ministerial sells to a second party land which is described as a fief (Lehen) of the monastery of Ottobeuren, and which is at the same time worked by a named peasant tenant. Hermann Hoffmann, ed. Die Urkunden des Reichsstiftes Ottobeuren 764–1460 (Augsburg, 1991), charters nos. 109–10 [23 June 1365], no. 133 [24 July 1384], no. 159 [16 Oct. 1401], no. 175 [9 Oct. 1408], no. 178 [23 Apr. 1409], no. 212 [24 July 1416] and no. 253 [2 Dec. 1429]. Franz Ludwig Baumann, Geschichte des Allgäus (4 vols. Kempten, 1883–94; repr. Aalen, 1971– 3), II, pp. 39, 387–8. Hans-Martin Schwarzmaier, Königtum, Adel und Klöster im Gebiet zwischen oberer Iller und Lech (Augsburg, 1961), pp. 118–48.

16


ministeriales and from a series of land-hungry Memmingen burghers.29 At the same time, the monastery was also finally obliged to replace the old vassalage system with a formal administration of its own, so as to exercise closer supervision of its lands. Sensible as this response was, however, it was bound to be expensive. To make matters worse, the need for increased revenue came at a time when the monastery’s grip on its primary source of income, i.e. the peasantry, had weakened dramatically. The short-term cause of this problem was an exhausting struggle between the monastery and its spiritual overlord, the Bishop of Augsburg. Simply stated, the Bishop wanted to reform the monastery and the moral lives of the monks who lived there. The effort was resisted for a variety of reasons, some more edifying than others. On the one hand, the free-living monks resented the strictures which the reformers sought to impose on their lives. On the other hand, they (correctly) saw the reform program as part of a larger effort by the Bishop to reduce the monastery’s autonomy and subject it to his own lordship. The Augsburg reform efforts touched off a protracted conflict which began in 1408 and continued for fully a hundred years (the more fundamental dispute over the monastery’s legal status lasted much longer, and culminated in a 1626 accord which entrenched Ottobeuren’s status as a free imperial monastery). A complicated tangle of events30 led to the occupation of the monastery lands and deposition of the Abbot by the Bishop’s troops in 1460. The Abbot’s successor proved equally resistant to reform, and nine years later he suffered a similar fate. In 1471 a papal commissioner ruled that the original Ottobeuren monks were completely incorrigible, and recommended that they be dispersed and replaced wholesale with more reform-minded members of the Benedictine order from Augsburg and Elchingen. The Ottobeuren monks promptly fled the monastery and elected a rival Abbot. In 1486 the disgruntled exiles and their anti-Abbot returned and mounted an unsuccessful assault on the monastery. The dispute was finally ended with the election of the reform-minded Abbot Leonhard Widenmann in 1508. Ottobeuren became a model Benedictine house, and its sixteenth-century Abbots were themselves often asked to conduct visitations to reform other religious houses. The subject population was quick to exploit the power vacuum generated by the squabbling of rival masters. The peasantry intervened repeatedly in the struggle between Abbot and Bishop, assembling in defence of “their” monks against would-be reformers from Nuremberg in 1447, and refusing 29

30

Peter Blickle, “Leibherrschaft als Instrument der Territorialpolitik im Allgäu: Grundlagen der Landeshoheit der Klöster Kempten und Ottobeuren” in Heinz Haushofer and Willi A. Boelcke, eds., Wege und Forschungen der Agrargeschichte: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Günther Franz (Frankfurt a.M., 1967), pp. 51–66, esp. p. 62. This compressed narrative is based on Baumann, Geschichte des Allgäus, Vol. II, pp. 389–95.


17

to pay taxes to Augsburg in 1464. Indeed, the schism itself was ultimately decided by the peasantry when they refused to recognize the anti-Abbot in 1486. Debilitating as all of this infighting was, it paled by comparison with the havoc wreaked by the epidemics of the fourteenth century. Like most south German ecclesiastical31 and secular32 lordships, the monastery of Ottobeuren suffered grievous financial wounds after its subject population was decimated by the plague. Farms lay abandoned and rent receipts collapsed. By the 1370s the monastery was heavily in debt, and in 1380 it was forced to sell the entire village of Günz along with the tithes in Günz and Rummeltshausen for £1,100 to the Memmingen burgher Hans Merz.33 In 1420 Abbot Johann Schedler wrote to Pope Martin V that the monastery had become so impoverished that its income, which had once supported forty monks, was now only large enough to support the Abbot and four others.34 As the monastery floundered in debt, its subject population became correspondingly more restive. In a climate of acute labor shortages, the bargaining position of the peasants had become much stronger, and they exploited this advantage to the fullest. In 1353 the Ottobeuren peasantry secured a privilege from Emperor Charles IV forbidding the Abbot from burdening his subjects with onerous taxes and confining the monastery’s death duty claim to the best head of livestock and best garment of a deceased serf. The privilege was reconfirmed by a series of emperors in 1414, 1439, 1488, and 1498.35 In 1406 the peasants began a rent strike36 which was only settled two years later through the intervention of the Bishop of Augsburg. The Abbot was required to grant the peasants rent reductions when their crops were damaged by war, wind, hail, or pests, and to accept the annual grain rent payments in the quality grown that year. Any peasant who felt that his rent was excessive could now appeal to the Bishop of Augsburg, whose servants had the power to investigate and regulate the matter.37 Finally, in 1434 the peasants forced the monastery to agree to a codification of their inheritance rights. Not only were children to have the right to inherit property from both mother and father, but brothers were also to inherit from brothers and sisters from sisters. Only if the deceased had neither lineal 31

32

33 35 36 37

The fundamental study is still Gero Kirchner, “Probleme der spätmittelalterlichen Klostergrundherrschaft in Bayern: Landflucht und bäuerliches Erbrecht,” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte 19, 1 (1956), pp. 1–94. Werner Rösener, “Grundherrschaft des Hochadels in Südwestdeutschland im Spätmittelalter” in Hans Patz, ed., Die Grundherrschaft im späten Mittelalter (Sigmaringen, 1983), Vol. II, pp. 87–176. 34 Ibid., no. 219 [30 Jan. 1420]. Hoffmann, ed. Urkunden, no. 130 [4 July 1380]. The originals of these privileges are no longer extant, but they have all been copied into StAA, KU 1354 [4 Feb. 1550]. Alfred Weitnauer, Allgäuer Chronik (4 vols., Kempten, 1969–84), Vol. III, pp. 230–1. Hoffmann, ed. Urkunden, no. 174 [31 July 1408].

18


nor collateral heirs was the property to go to the monastery. Death duties were now restricted to the best head of livestock alone.38 The most spectacular self-assertion by the subjects of the monastery was their participation in the German Peasants’ War of 1525. The Ottobeuren lands lay in the heartland of the revolt, and after renouncing their allegiance to the Abbot in February of 1525, the peasants soon joined the mass uprising which swept across most of southwestern and central Germany. The celebrated Twelve Articles, demanding (among other things) a reduction of rents and entry fines, control of the tithe, and the outright abolition of serfdom, were printed in the neighboring city of Memmingen. The monastery itself was stormed and plundered by its own subjects, and the Abbot was restored only by the armed might of the Swabian League in July. Many Ottobeuren peasants did not even bother to agitate or negotiate for better conditions, but simply left the monastery lands altogether, either for tenancies in other territories, presumably under better conditions, or for nearby cities. Some also contrived to acquire the intermediate status of Pfahlbürger, i.e. a peasant who had acquired the citizenship (and protection) of a city but still continued to live on the land. The monastery was quite alarmed at these developments and sought to prevent the problem of “land flight” in various ways. The Abbots secured privileges of their own from the Emperor, forbidding the subjects of the monastery from emigrating to cities and forbidding the cities from receiving them. In 1356 the Golden Bull of Emperor Charles IV abolished the status of Pfahlbürger outright, and a similar decree was issued by Emperor Sigismund in 1431.39 From those of its subjects who had unsuccessfully attempted to flee, the monastery extracted oaths that they would not try again and bonds from their relatives to ensure compliance. Thus on 30 November 1388, Cuncz der Lang of Wolfertschwenden and his wife, Katherin die Kolhúndin, swore to remain within the monastery lands, not to carry off their children, and to take on no citizenship “in either deed or appearance” without the permission of the monastery. The couple also furnished nine guarantors, each of whom was liable for a fine of ten pounds if either of the couple broke the oath.40 Despite occasional resort to coercive measures like these, the Abbots eventually realized that the only effective means of bringing abandoned holdings back into cultivation and of improving the output of existing ones was to make concessions to their subjects. The ad hoc and chaotic relations of vassalage were recognized as both an encumbrance on the peasantry and an impediment to the proper supervision of the lordship’s resources. Under the prodding of the 38 39 40

Ibid., no. 268 [31 Jan. 1434]. Ibid., nos. 70 [19 Dec. 1334], 99 [10 Jan. 1356], and 258 [25 Mar. 1431]. Ibid., no. 141. Similarly nos. 187 [24 Feb. 1412] and 215 [15 Mar. 1418].


19

Bishop of Augsburg, the monastery therefore began to put peasant land tenure on a different and much more secure footing. The largest and choicest properties at Ottobeuren (Höfe, singular Hof) were held under a form of life-term tenure called Gotteshausrecht, or “monastery right.” The origin of these Höfe is obscure. In other south German lordships, the Höfe can be shown to have descended from the very large demesnes of the Carolingian era. Smaller, dependent holdings known as Huben or Güter were attached to the demesne, which was administered by a powerful official known as a villicus or Maier. During the high Middle Ages, the demesnes were broken up into several large Höfe, the biggest of which was often known as the Maierhof.41 A similar process may well have taken place at Ottobeuren. Most of the villages had a Maierhof, and as late as the sixteenth century, we find small tenancies owing payments to the Maierhof.42 Unfortunately, the minimal administrative apparatus of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries has left us very little direct evidence with which to work. During the last third of the fifteenth century, and especially from the 1480s, the monastery began issuing formal, sealed charters of tenancy (Lehensreverse) to the holders of the Gotteshausrecht Höfe. These charters explicitly itemized the tenant’s obligations to the monastery, and certified his lifelong right to the Hof as long as these obligations were met. At this time the monks also began compiling a series of rent rolls (Gültbücher) which listed – and, significantly, fixed – the rent payment owed from each Hof. All of this was part of a general expansion of the monastery’s documentary apparatus (see Figure 1.1),43 which swelled dramatically as the century came to an end. The formalization of the tenant’s rights and obligations was only part of the transformation of tenurial relations at Ottobeuren. Equally important was the creation of new and more favorable terms of tenure altogether. In 1459, for example, Abbot Johann Kraus granted a large Hof in the village of Haldenwang to one Alexander Grus both for Grus’ own lifetime and thereafter to his children for their lifetimes.44 Still more generous than the extended lease was the granting of a heritable tenure, or Erblehenrecht, which invested the tenant and all of his heirs with a right to the property. As long as each new tenant paid his rent and 41

42 43

44

Werner Rösener, Grundherrschaft im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung geistlicher Grundherrschaften im südwestdeutschen Raum vom 9. bis 14. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1991), pp. 467–89. E.g. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 1191 [4 Nov. 1538]. Figure 1.1 is only an approximate indication of documentary activity, since it includes charters received by the monastery from others, and excludes charters issued by the monastery of which no Ottobeuren copy was kept. It also omits the accounts and rent rolls maintained in increasing numbers from the 1520s. Hoffmann, ed. Urkunden, no. 373 [27 Apr. 1459]. Similarly StAA, KU Ottobeuren 262a [4 June 1462], Oberböglins, and KU Ottobeuren 263 [26 July 1462], Schlegelsberg.

20


100

80

60

40

20

0 1450– 4 1460 – 4 1470 – 4 1480 – 4 1490 – 4 1500 – 4 1510 –14 1520 – 4 1530 – 4 Figure 1.1 Charters of the monastery of Ottobeuren in five-year intervals, 1450/4–1535/9 Source: StAA, KU Ottobeuren 220–1213

an entry fine (Lehengeld) fixed at one fortieth of the value of the property at investiture, inheritance was guaranteed in perpetuity.45 The earliest documented grant of a heritable tenure in the monastery lands occurred in 1379 when Abbot Johann von Hocherer converted the tenure of Ralf der Zehender’s Hof in Dietratried from Gotteshausrecht to Erblehenrecht.46 Similar conversions are documented for the mills in Engetried (1407) and Benningen (1415),47 but the real surge in Erblehenrecht grants did not come until the abbacy of Johann Schedler, who reigned from 1416 to 1443. Of Abbot Johann the later monastic chroniclers would write that “no abbot granted out more of the monastery’s lands in heritable tenure and none before him made as much progress with [the monastery’s] finances as this Abbot Johann.”48 In 1417 he granted out holdings in Oberried and Dassberg, and in 1418 lands in Hüners and Lietzheim. In the 1420s and 1430s lands were converted to Erblehenrecht in the hamlets of Bossarts, Bibelsberg, Warlins, Kräpflins, Schoren, and Leupolz. Still further grants were made in the hamlets Rempolz, Hofs, Reuthen, and Berg. After the 1440s there were also several conversions to Erblehenrecht in the villages, particularly in Böhen, Wolfertschwenden, and Niederdorf. In 45

46 47 48

There is a useful discussion of Erblehenrecht in Karl Siegfried Bader, Rechtsformen und Schichten der Liegenschaftsnutzung im mittelalterlichen Dorf (Vienna, Cologne and Graz, 1973), pp. 16–53. The norm of one fortieth (2.5 percent) is taken from the mass of Erblehen charters copied into StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18. Hoffmann, ed. Urkunden, no. 129 [18 May 1379]. Ibid., nos. 171 [10 Sep. 1407] and 207 [28 Sep. 1415]. Maurus Feyerabend, Des ehemaligen Reichsstiftes Ottenbeuren, Benediktiner Ordens in Schwaben, sämmtliche Jahrbücher (4 vols., Ottobeuren, 1813–16), Vol. II, p. 621.


21

60.0 Villages

50.0

Hamlets 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 to 949

1000 – 49 1100 – 49 1200 – 49 1300 – 49 1400 – 49 1500 – 49

Figure 1.2 Distribution (percent) of Ottobeuren settlements by earliest documentary reference Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, 64 and 541 (2), Ralf Heimrath, “Ortsnamen und Siedlungsgeschichte seit dem 6. Jahrhundert” in Aegidius Kolb, ed., Landkreis Unterallgäu (2 vols., Mindelheim, 1987), Vol. I, pp. 72–84

1463 the Bishop of Augsburg authorized the monastery to convert its remaining Gotteshausrecht farms to Erblehenrecht,49 and the Abbots would continue to make new grants into the early decades of the sixteenth century.50 In the long run, the concessions made by the monastery redounded to its benefit. The peasants were not only prepared to pay ready money for the conversion of life term to heritable tenure, they were also willing to clear new land in exchange for the grant of Erblehenrecht. The fifteenth century thus saw a dramatic expansion of cultivation, as peasants moved out of the old villages and established new settlements in the still-forested southern region of the monastery lands (see Figure 1.2). The novelty of these clearances is underscored not only by the virtual universality of Erblehenrecht in the region, but also by a striking difference in the form of settlement. Whereas the inhabitants of the older settlements in the north of the Ottobeuren lands lived in large nucleated villages, those who carried out the fifteenth-century clearances to the south settled into small, scattered hamlets, which were grouped for administrative purposes into a half-dozen or so headmanships, or Hauptmannschaften. This expansion of rent- and tithe-paying land and the more diligent cultivation of the old settled land soon restored the monastery’s financial health. 49 50

StAA, KU Ottobeuren 265 [14 Jan. 1463]. The monastery did not, of course, convert all of its Gotteshausrecht farms. Feyerabend, Ottenbeuren Jahrbücher, Vol. II, pp. 621–2 (conversions in the years 1417–18), 627–8 (in 1424–40), and 715 (in 1480). Also ibid., Vol. III, pp. 113–14 (in 1534). A great many Erblehenrecht charters have been copied into StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18.

22


By the second quarter of the fifteenth century, the monks were able to begin repurchasing alienated lands and acquiring new ones. Between 1427 and 1448, the monks acquired more than ten thousand gulden worth of properties in the settlements surrounding the monastery,51 thereby eliminating most other landlords in the villages of Dietratried, Egg, Frechenrieden, and Niederrieden. In 1468 Abbot Wilhelm von Lustenau capped the monastery’s acquisition drive by repurchasing the alienated village of Günz from the Memmingen burgher Jodokus Ampfelbronn. By the early sixteenth century, the outcome of these developments at Ottobeuren was the combination of entrenched peasant property and inheritance rights with a decidedly moderate form of lordship. Rents remained fixed at fifteenth-century levels not only for Erblehen land,52 but also for the Gotteshausrecht Höfe53 which yielded the lion’s share of the monastery’s groundrents (Gülten). The ability of peasants to pass on their lands to their children had been greatly enhanced by the spread of Erblehenrecht, and by the imperial privileges restricting the monastery’s claims to the property of its subjects. Peasant rights to the sprawling Gotteshausrecht Höfe were in theory much inferior. The grant of land under Gotteshausrecht was for the full term of the tenant’s life, but no longer. The tenant’s children had no legal claim to the land after his death. In addition, the statutes of the monastery insisted that every year as soon as My Gracious Lord or His Grace’s delegate shall arrive at the Bauding [annual assembly of the peasantry], from that hour on in keeping with ancient usage, tradition, custom, and habit each and every Hof, Hube and Gut which is held from his grace . . . according to Gotteshausrecht is free, discharged and released to His Grace [and] each and every one who holds such a Hof, Hube and Gut shall with trembling hands [mit wagendter handen] again receive it from My Gracious Lord until the next Bauding.54 The object of this ceremony was to make it clear that the land remained the property of the monastery and not that of the tenant. The practice proved inadequate to dissuade peasant claims of hereditability, however, and the monastery began inserting additional clauses in the leases to strengthen its position. Thus when Jerg Hering was admitted to a small property in Altisried in 1569, the Erdschatz register stipulated that “if Hering the current tenant has a son who is suitable to serve the monastery, My Gracious Lord consents also to support the 51 52

53

54

Hoffmann, ed. Urkunden, nos. 248, 253, 260, 264, 267, 277, 284, 285, 300, 303, 313, 316, 326, 334. E.g. “Bölers Gut” in the village of Sontheim was leased at an annual grain rent of 2 malter in 1464. In 1544 the rent was the same. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, ff. 275v–276r; KL Ottobeuren 29, f. 70v. See also StAA, KU Ottobeuren 678 [25 July 1503]. E.g. the Maierhof in Attenhausen was leased at an annual grain rent of 15 malter in 1483. The property was divided in 1512, but the combined rent of the two halves in 1544 was still 15 malter. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 406, 803, 804 and 1026. KL Ottobeuren 29, f. 65r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289X, f. 372r (c. 1551).


23

Table 1.1 Transmission patterns for Gotteshausrecht Höfe at Ottobeuren, 1480–1549a

1480–9 1490–9 1500–9 1510–19 1520–9 1530–9 1540–9

Kin transfers

Non-kin transfers

Total

% kin transfers

4 15 15 25 12 16 14

14 17 15 16 17 18 20

18 32 30 41 29 34 34

22.2 46.9 50.0 61.0 41.4 47.1 41.2

Note: a Transfers by peasants to the monastery have been excluded as these were invariably a prelude to the property being regranted to a third party. The number of these transfers was in any case insignificant before 1525. Source: StAA, KU Ottobeuren

said [son], but only voluntarily, and the Erdschatz payment is forgiven to him [i.e. Hering] but only in exchange for his service, and no [right of] succession shall result either to his wife or child.” Stern as these conditions may seem, they do not accurately reflect actual practice. Jerg Hering was in fact succeeded on the Gotteshausrecht holdings by his son in 1593,55 and in general, Gotteshausrecht holdings passed so often in practice from father to son or son-in-law that they might as well have been hereditable in law (see Table 1.1). Of course, no tenant took even de facto heritability of these Höfe for granted, and notarial evidence indicates that contingency plans were made in case the heir was not admitted to the land. Be that as it may, the 1565 dispute between the Abbot and the Wagner family discussed at the beginning of this chapter shows how strongly the peasants felt about their right even to Gotteshausrecht land. The inheritance arrangements of remarrying widows are even more revealing in this regard. That a son might be contractually required not even to ask the Abbot for the tenancy of a Gotteshausrecht Hof (so that it might instead pass to his stepfather) offers powerful testimony of the practical strength of peasant property rights.56 The reality of these rights has here been emphasized because the tendency of most discussions of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Germany has been to stress the arbitrary and exploitative nature of lordship. In so far as peasants labored and the monastery took part of the fruits away from them, exploitation 55 56

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, ff. 117v–118r. Cf. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 443 [6 Mar. 1487]. A Bauer gives up the Hof for which he has not been paying the rent and asks that it be granted to his son Hans; it is. For the contractual stipulation that a son not ask to be admitted to the family’s Gotteshausrecht Hof, see KL Ottobeuren 901, ff. 91v–92r [5 Mar. 1584] and 102r–v [30 Apr. 1584].

24


continued at least until the secularization of the monastery in 1803 (and arguably until late in the nineteenth century, when the peasants finally bought out the rights that the Bavarian state had conveniently assumed from the monastery it had secularized). Nevertheless, the clear outcome of the struggles of the fifteenth century was that the monks learned that they had no choice but to keep exploitation within limits. Above all, property relations at Ottobeuren came to be governed by a rule of law to which the monastery itself was subject. Of course these laws favored the monastery in a contest with any individual peasant. The monastery’s vastly superior powers of collecting and preserving information gave it an unrivaled ability to exploit the technicalities of the land law. Thus in February of 1549, when four recent heirs to Erblehen holdings in the hamlet of Vogelsang neglected to seek formal admission to their Höfe, the secretary of the monastery was able to declare them to have forfeited their tenures.57 In the same way, Jerg Hörter and his six sons found themselves overmatched in 1519 when they insisted that their modest holding in Egg was a freehold property and thus bore no obligation of rent payment. Abbot Leonhard disagreed. Since they can show us nothing besides their mere words to prove this [claim], we contend that this property, since it has [in fact] been yielding us and our monastery a permanent annual rent of seven viertel of rye, eleven shillings, one hen and two pullets, belongs to us and our monastery, and is to be leased under Gotteshausrecht like other holdings of this sort.58 The Hörters’ claim was rejected. Despite the unevenness of these contests, however, the monastery did not go on to steamroll the peasantry. In the first place, even when peasants did lose these legal battles (and they most certainly did not always lose),59 the resulting deterioration of their property rights was minor. The four tenants from Vogelsang received their forfeited lands back under a kind of tenure known as Freilehenrecht. An entry fine now had to be paid both at the investiture of a new tenant and at the investiture of a new abbot, but the prized heritability of the land was preserved.60 As for Jerg Hörter and his sons, Abbot Leonhard 57 58 59

60

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 16, “Lehenbuch 1547/83,” ff. 31r–v [1 and 2 Feb. 1549]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, ff. 321r–v. Emphasis mine. The original charter is StAA, KU Ottobeuren 907 [14 Nov. 1519]. See the 1541 dispute between the monastery and Hans Moser and Veit Köberlin of Egg over the Erblehen status they claimed for their meadows in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, ff. 327v–329v. The Abbot conceded that “since we have found credible references in our rent rolls and also in the old charters of sale that the said meadow was granted out in heritable tenure by our predecessors, we [too] have newly granted and given out the four tagwerk of meadow as an Erblehen and according to Erblehenrecht.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 16, ff. 31r–v. The heritability of Freilehen land is attested by the multiple entries in the Lehenbuch to tenants paying entry fines for land which they are explicitly declared to have inherited. See e.g. ibid., ff. 102v (1547), 91v (1553), 58r (1555), 63r (1566), 82v (1567), and 77v–78r (1582).


25

proved ultimately willing to compromise. The land ended up being declared neither freehold nor Gotteshausrecht but Freilehen. The Abbot seems to have been prepared even to forgo the rent payment,61 and Hörter remained on the land for almost thirty years.62 Most of the time, in fact, the monastery was markedly lenient with forgetful or defaulting tenants. In 1497, for example, the monastery seized the holding of one Adam Rentzlin of Niederrieden “because of much outstanding and bygone rent and interest.” The Abbot was persuaded, however, to regrant the property to Rentzlin’s son-in-law, Hans Teuffel.63 The peasants of Böhen secured similarly generous terms from the monastery after a forfeiture in 1485. In 1463 the Abbot had granted out a series of properties known as the Schlauen, the Mößer, and the Schwendi to the village community. The villagers were to clear the land, divide it into shares, and attach each share to a specific holding in the village. The shares were then to remain “never again at any time changed, mortgaged or sold, but that each and every one shall be used [under the understanding that it shall] belong in the said village and in the said holdings and always remain there.”64 Twelve years later the properties were confiscated by the angry Abbot after it was revealed that some of the villagers had dared “to separate their allotted shares . . . from their holdings in the village of Böhen.” In the end, however, there was little that the Abbot could do but regrant the land to the villagers with the admonition that all clauses of the original arrangement were to be observed. In addition, if in the future a member of the village community wished to sell both his share of the cleared land and his holding in the village, the sale price was to be determined by a group of four men, two of whom were to be appointed by the Abbot and two by the village community.65 The monastery listened sympathetically to Mathias Knebel of Böhen who “says that he bought his [Freilehen] land twelve years ago [but] didn’t realize that he was obliged to be formally invested,”66 and actually went so far as to fine one Barthlome 61 62 63

64 65

66

There is no entry for the property in Egg in the 1544 rent roll. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, ff. 90r–101v. He ranks in the bottom 42.9 percent of Egg taxpayers in the 1546 tax register. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 17r–21r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, ff. 300r–302v [27 June 1497]. Similarly the fate of Jäck Döpprich of Benningen, who was obliged by non-payment of rent to surrender his Hof back to the monastery. Döpprich requested that the land be regranted to his son Hans, and it was. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 443 [6 Mar. 1487]. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 266 [2 May 1463]. There is a copy in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, ff. 228r–229r. Ibid., ff. 229v–230v. The orginal charter is StAA, KU Ottobeuren 433 [6 Oct. 1485]. See also Hoffmann, ed. Urkunden, no. 374 [23 June 1459], the arbitration of a dispute between the Memmingen burgher Jacob Ratz and the monastery of Ottobeuren. The Abbot had impounded Ratz’s holding for non-payment of rent, but was persuaded to regrant it to him. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 16, f. 94v [8 May 1579]. Knebel was admitted to the land. See also StAA, KU Ottobeuren 1444 [15 May 1553], the Lehensrevers of Hans Kopp of Sontheim, who forfeited his Hof “through a misunderstanding” and was readmitted to it.

26


Schmidt of Egg in 1575 for not presenting himself for readmission to Erblehen which he had forfeited!67 Furthermore, when the monastery did choose to take a hard line, it was often able to prevail only at cost of considerable effort, regardless of the strength of its case. In 1537, for example, a court was covened in the market town of Ottobeuren to try the title of one Pantelion Frech of Altisried to two tagwerk of meadow in the neighboring village of Frechenrieden. Although he was not an heir to the property, Frech had seized control of the meadow after the death of the previous tenant, Othmar Sÿngÿbel, and had then refused to apply for formal admission. The monastery accordingly resolved to eject him. On 5 July, the original 1478 Erblehen charter was read out in court, whereupon the Abbot’s attorney, Johann Kötterlin, argued that Frech had violated several of the charter’s provisions and had therefore forfeited the land. Frech himself made no answer to these charges. In fact, he didn’t even bother to show up in court. The Amman of Böhen, who had been appointed as judge, then asked whether Frech had been told to appear at the trial. The bailiff got up and duly swore that On the previous Saturday, in the presence of the sheriff of Frechenrieden, he informed Pantelion Frech of this court date. Pantelion replied to him, the witness, that he could not make this date because he would not yet be back in the lordship by then. The witness then told him that he [Pantelion] could easily return to the lordship [in time for the court date]. Whereupon Pantelion retorted that he was within his rights, and that whoever had something to dispute with him could seek him out by himself. He [Pantelion] would neither come to nor appear at this court date. Incensed by this testimony, Kötterlin argued that Pantelion’s insolence was by itself grounds enough for forfeiture, but the presiding judge was unwilling to be so hasty. He ruled that the defendant should be given another chance to explain himself, and set a new court date for two days later. Again Frech did not show up, and again the Abbot’s attorney demanded a declaration of forfeiture. But still the Amman of Böhen was concerned whether Pantelion Frech had been fairly informed of the new court date. The bailiff was sworn in for a second time, and testified that he, the witness, took with him the Amman and one of the members of the village council [Vierer] to Altisried, and looked for Pantelion Frech in his house, but they did not find him. They then looked for him where his wife was, in one of her freehold meadows, and [since he was not there either, they] announced to her that her husband was to appear before the tenurial court on this current day at seven o’clock in the morning. 67

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 7 “Strafregister 1575/6.”


27

By now even the judge’s patience was exhausted. The meadow was declared forfeit, whereupon the monastery granted it out as an Erblehen to a new tenant.68 The significance of this episode is not the substance of the legal dispute; Pantelion Frech very likely knew that he had no defensible claim to the land, which explains his refusal to plead his case in court. Much more important is the fact that even when it had the law on its side, the monastery was bound by rules of procedure which effectively precluded arbitrary dispossession.69 The spectacle of the Abbot’s attorney requesting a peasant court to declare property to be forfeit belies any suspicion that the land law was merely a tool of feudal oppression. The peasant judges may have been appointed to their positions by their overlord, but this did not make them his catspaws. If they were unconvinced by the Abbot’s agents, they would not rule in their favor.70 The foregoing discussion of the thicket of legal constraints on the monastery’s power over its subjects and their property brings us to a second general feature of peasant–overlord relations in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries: even when the Abbot had the law completely on his side, this often failed to translate into effective powers of coercion. That weakness should have obtained during the turbulence and insolvency of the fourteenth century is perhaps unsurprising. That it should also have been manifest at the point of maximum lordly strength – the aftermath of the Swabian League’s victory in the Peasants’ War of 1525 – is a telling illustration of the realities of power in the countryside. According to the terms of capitulation drawn up in 1525, the Swabian League was entitled to levy a reparations tax of 6 gulden per hearth on every town and village in the pacified area.71 As the League had been the decisive force in suppressing the revolt, this tax had absolute priority over all others. Local lords wanting to impose their own reparations taxes on the peasants – and almost all of them did – were enjoined from so doing until the claims of the League had been satisfied. Individual tax payments were adjusted to the wealth of the 68

69

70

71

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 2, Document 185, ff. 338r–344r. The original ruling of the Böhen Lehengericht is preserved in StAA, KU Ottobeuren 1174 [7 July 1537]. The Erblehen charter has been copied both in the court proceedings themselves and in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, ff. 262r– 263r. The latter also records the 1537 forfeiture and the subsequent regrant to a certain Jerg Oschwald. See in this regard the ruling of the Niederrieden village court that the Abbot was required to wait more than six weeks before being permitted to reclaim a Gotteshausrecht property whose tenant had been formally declared to be in arrears of rent. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 562 [14 Jan. 1493]. A widow who went completely bankrupt a few years later was allowed to retain her garments, bed, and bedclothes. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 576 [15 Apr. 1496] (Ruling by Peter Stehelin, Amman of Ottobeuren on the lands of the widow Margaret Märck of Betzisried). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 308M, ff. 1081r–1083r (Urfehdebrief of Mang Möslin of Niederrieden [24 Sep. 1538]). Möslin had been asked to sentence an accused criminal, and sarcastically retorted that “I will be glad to pronounce sentence as soon as the Vogt of Ottobeuren can show me the truth of his charge.” This was a not inconsiderable sum; 6 gulden would buy enough grain to feed three adults for an entire year.

28


household; a total sum was levied on the village and then apportioned among the households by the village community. Two categories of people were exempted from the tax: widows, orphans, and the poor on one hand, and those who could prove that they had not taken part in the revolt on the other. Since the local lords could not be relied upon in the matter, the Swabian League resolved to collect the reparations on its own. This was initially conducted on an ad hoc basis, but by May of 1525 (and thus before the pacification of the Ottobeuren lands in July) the Swabian League had assembled a formidable bureaucratic apparatus to wring the money from the peasantry. The pacified areas were divided into districts, each of which was assigned to a team of collection agents. The agents then dispatched horsemen into the district to record the number of hearths in each village and to enforce payment of the tax. In addition, special security forces totaling 800 cavalry were stationed in Ulm, Heilbronn, Bamberg, Kaufbeuren, and Kempten. These squadrons roamed the countryside, maintaining quiescence through a combination of brutality and intimidation. This took place with the full approval of the League, which regarded the dark reputation of the mercenaries as an ideal deterrent to further rebellion. It goes without saying that it also expedited payment of the reparations.72 The Ottobeuren lands were part of a tax district administered from the city of Memmingen. As was the case throughout Upper Swabia and the Allgäu, the collection effort in this district was pressed remorselessly. Barring detailed proof to the contrary, all peasants were considered guilty of rebellion and therefore liable for the tax. Local authorities often sought to shield their subjects with the argument that the peasants had only unwillingly joined the rebels, but the League paid little attention to such objections. Appeals for exemption due to poverty met with a similar lack of sympathy. Although widows, orphans, and the destitute were officially exempted from the tax, the League issued so few actual remissions that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that many of the poor were none the less forced to pay.73 Multiple taxation was another common abuse. The League was supposed to issue receipts for the sums collected, but its agents frequently neglected to do so, often deliberately (the League’s mercenaries were in the habit of collecting “unofficial” reparations while on the march). Those unfortunates who could not prove that they had already paid were routinely compelled to do so again. In other cases the League amended the original assessments with 72

73

Thomas F. Sea, “Schwäbischer Bund und Bauernkrieg: Bestrafung und Pazifikation” in Hans-Ulrich Wehler, ed., Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg 1524–1526 (Gottingen, 1975), pp. 129–67, at pp. 133, 151–6; Baumann, Allgäu, Vol. III, pp. 133–5. Sea found that in the area around Augsburg, only 313 [= 11.3 percent] of 2,774 assessed hearths were exempted from the reparations tax. Moreover, of these 313 exemptions, “only 73 [= 2.6 percent of the total] can be definitely identified as exemptions due to extreme poverty.” Thomas F. Sea, “The Economic Impact of the German Peasants’ War: The Question of Reparations,” Sixteenth Century Journal 8, 3 (1977), pp. 75–97, at pp. 83–4, 87.


29

predictable results. Ottobeuren’s district was saddled with an initial obligation of 25,000 gulden. Most of this sum had been collected by March of 1526,74 but a battered register now in the Staatsarchiv Augsburg indicates that the League imposed a further round of taxes on the monastery villages the following summer.75 In many cases the peasants just did not have the money, but this was hardly an obstacle to the rapacity of the tax collectors. Penniless peasants were simply forced to borrow the money, with the result that payments arising from the reparations taxes were still being made for years after the war had ended.76 At Ottobeuren indirect evidence indicates that payments continued at least into 1532.77 The subjects of the Prince-Abbot of Kempten were still making payments in 1548, long after the Swabian League itself had ceased to exist.78 All in all it was a striking if distasteful achievement. In a region of extremely fragmented political sovereignty the Swabian League succeeded in creating a supra-territorial taxation machine that squeezed one-quarter of a million gulden from the devastated villages of the German southwest.79 The League’s example was followed by countless local lords – the Abbot of Ottobeuren among them – who imposed their own taxes on the peasants the instant the League’s claims had been satisfied. Yet, despite the apparent success of the taxation effort, there were definite limits to the power that any authority could exercise in the villages. In the first place, fiscal extraction on this scale was possible only in the very short run. The aforementioned evidence of peasant indebtedness makes it clear that these collections could never have been sustained. As it was, the collection 74 75

76 77

78 79

The precise figure was 24,768 fl. 36 kr. Sea, “Economic Impact,” pp. 92–4. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 159, ff. 10r–14v. “Raÿß gelt Anno 1526 von deß pauren kriegs wegen.” The document is bound with a muster roll from 1499 and a second war tax list from 1532. The assessments for the market town of Ottobeuren and the villages of Benningen and Niederrieden are missing from the 1526 list. Since almost all of the assessments in the (complete) 1532 list bear a relation between 0.53 and 0.59:1 to those of 1526, however, the missing earlier assessments can be interpolated on the basis of the mean 1532/1526 coefficient (0.556). The total second assessment for 1526 can thus be estimated at 425 fl. Note also that although all of the money initially levied in the Memmingen area had been collected by March of 1526, the accounts of the Swabian League for January 1527 list a (new) outstanding sum of 1,570 fl. Sea, “Economic Impact,” pp. 92–4. Ibid., pp. 83–7. In the Augsburg area, at least 40 percent of the total assessment of 14,993 fl. was financed by debt. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 159. “Raÿß gelt Anno 1532 deß turrgen kriegs wegen.” Part of this war tax granted to Charles V in 1532 was later revoked, with the result that some of the money already collected was to be returned to the peasants. In recording these repayments, the scribe who drew up the tax register repeatedly entered a credit against outstanding payments from the reparations levied in 1526 instead of actually handing back the money to the peasants. See also the letter from Charles V to the Abbot of Ottobeuren [28 Dec. 1533] ordering him to issue receipts to the peasantry for monies paid to the Swabian League. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 2, “Rotulus Probationum,” Vol. II, Document 181, ff. 328v–329v. Baumann, Allgäu, Vol. III, p. 135. See also Sea, “Schwäbischer Bund,” p. 162. The total initially levied in 1526 comes to 247,941 fl. 48 kr. Of this 93 percent had been collected by June of 1527. Sea, “Economic Impact,” p. 86.

30


still had to be carried out at swordpoint. Moreover, the primary post-war goal had been the creation of a politically docile subject population, and this was not so easily accomplished. The point is not that the authority of a sixteenth-century lord was precarious but rather that it was exceedingly superficial. Although his power could be focused in particular instances to collect a tax or punish a malefactor, it was never a continuous presence in the villages and was rarely successful in shaping the actual behavior of his subjects. The reason for this impotence is perfectly straightforward: an adequate coercive apparatus simply did not exist. The military muscle deployed by the Swabian League in 1525–7 was a temporary force, and even as such was beyond the capacity of most individual lordships. At Ottobeuren, for example, the monks could only count on their Vogt, a single local noble who arranged for peasant compliance with the monastery’s decrees when the moral authority of the Abbot was insufficiently persuasive. Beyond the Vogt, the monastery was dependent upon the admonitions of the parish priest, a clutch of scribes and administrators, and a dozen poorly paid Pittel, or sheriffs, to maintain order among thousands of stubborn, well-armed, and litigious peasants. For almost all of his subjects the Abbot’s authority was thus an episodic and often reactive intrusion into their lives. The Abbot could try to keep a lid on unrest in the villages, but the boil itself he was powerless to prevent. With the dispersal of the insurgent bands in July of 1525, the monastery took up the task of punishing the defeated rebels. Executions played no role in this process, for not only did the monks concede the legitimacy of some peasant grievances,80 but the financial exigencies of the monastic community ultimately outweighed any desire for vindictiveness among its members. Similar patterns obtained throughout the region; there was a scattered handful of executions,81 but, as one perceptive noble put it, “If all of the peasants are killed, where shall we get other peasants to make provision for us?”82 At Ottobeuren the situation was further simplified by the fact that many of the rebels not slain in battle (and there had been a few casualties in a confused clash on the banks of the river 80

81 82

Thus the Ottobeuren monk and humanist Nikolaus Ellenbog (1481–1543) in his tract De servis et servitute corporali: “for many years [the lords] had inflicted no small injustice upon their subjects, and the yoke which they placed on them was heavy beyond all measure. Thus did God allow that the servants rose up against the masters so that those who had done evil [now] also felt evil, those who had resorted to violence also suffered violence [and] those who had oppressed the poor were themselves oppressed, so that they were judged by the same standards with which they had judged.” See Friedrich Zoepfl, “Der Humanist Nikolaus Ellenbog zur Frage der bäuerlichen Leibeigenschaft,” Historisches Jahrbuch 58, 1/2 (1938), pp. 129–35, at p. 134. Baumann, Allgäu, Vol. III, p. 138. See also Sea, “Schwäbischer Bund,” pp. 133–4, 148–51. A. W. Ward, G. W. Prothero, and Stanley Leathes, eds. The Cambridge Modern History, Vol. II: The Reformation (Cambridge, 1903), p. 191.


31

83

Leubas when the Swabian League moved into the Ottobeuren lands) hastily relocated to the comparative safety of the Swiss cantons.84 A separation of the sheep from the goats was none the less deemed necessary. After a general reparations tax had been levied on all of the inhabitants (in direct violation of the prerogatives of the Swabian League),85 a register was drawn up of “all those who are to be singled out from the general settlement.”86 These alleged instigators and leaders of the revolt were either fined or ordered to perform labor services for the monastery. In a few cases the fines were set at crippling levels of 50, 60, and even 100 gulden, but by the standards of the day most of the punishments were rather mild: a fine of 10 to 12 gulden, ten days of field work, or the obligation to cart a specified quantity of grain, nails, or stone. Indeed, some of the punishments were trivial. Jerg Lang and Hans Maier of Unterwolfertschwenden, for example, were merely fined a single gulden each. A fuller picture of the lenience of the post-war settlement is provided by a series of documents known as Urfehdebriefe. A holdover from the medieval institution of the Fehde, or feud, an Urfehdebrief was the formal renunciation of the right of vengeance on the part of a convicted criminal. It is perhaps most helpfully likened to the modern notion of a plea bargain. An Urfehdebrief typically begins with a confession of misdeeds and an acknowledgment that serious punishment was deserved. But in exchange for a more lenient sentence, the criminal forswore both formal vengeance and the right to appeal his sentence 83

84

85

86

The tax register drawn up by the monastery in the fall of 1525 (StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 2, “Generalrechnung 1529 [sic]”) lists the names of the householders in each village and the tax imposed upon them. Next to many of these names has been inserted “shot dead at the Leubas,” “stabbed at the Leubas,” “remained at the Leubas,” and so on. Baumann, Allgäu, Vol. III, pp. 138–9. See also the letter dated 17 Dec. 1526 from a collection of Ottobeuren exiles asking permission to return to their homes in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 2, Document 174, ff. 307v–309v. It has long been incorrectly asserted (e.g. Baumann, Allgäu, Vol. III, p. 135) that the Abbot of Ottobeuren never imposed any reparations taxes on his peasants, and Sea has gone so far as to argue (although this may be the result of a mistranslation) that the Abbot paid the peasants’ Swabian League taxes out of his own pocket! (Sea, “Schwäbischer Bund,” p. 161). The confusion is understandable, since the facts were erroneously reported in an otherwise reliable monastic chronicle in 1814, and a crucial document now in the Staatsarchiv Augsburg was miscatalogued in 1899 and has therefore gone unnoticed. The document in question is StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 2. The MS. has been labeled “Generalrechnung 1529,” but careful examination shows it to be a tax register. The title page is missing from the MS. (this must have contributed to the cataloguing error), but has been preserved in an abbreviated copy in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 290A, ff. 419v–426v. The title reads “In this register is written how and at which amounts the market town of Ottobeuren [and] all [of the] villages and parishioners have been reconciled with my gracious lord of Ottobeuren regarding the damages inflicted. Actum Monday after St. Mang’s Day [i.e. 11 Sep.], Anno XXV.” This register survives as an abbreviated copy in the Rotulus Probationum. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 290B, ff. 426v–432v. The scribe notes that “this register has not been [copied] word for word, but only the names of those punished and the specificationes of the punishments [have] briefly [been] bona fide extracted.”

32


to higher courts. The criminal also vowed on pain of severe chastisement to obey his lord in the future and never to commit such an offense again.87 Considerable numbers of Urfehdebriefe were issued at Ottobeuren after the Peasants’ War. These charters reveal that the monastery pursued a deliberate policy of rehabilitating the ex-rebels. Although some of the Urfehdebriefe were issued to peasants captured and imprisoned by Ottobeuren’s Vogt, just as many were issued to fugitives who voluntarily turned themselves in to prison after the Abbot promised to spare their lives.88 Moreover, no offense was so heinous as to rule out the possibility of pardon. Urfehdebriefe were issued to looters of the monastery, to Lutheran agitators, and to officers in the insurgent armies.89 The offer of amnesty was even extended to the notorious “miller of Sontheim,” a chief instigator of the revolt and attack on the monastery.90 The various fines and prohibitions imposed in the Urfehdebriefe are not easily reconciled with modern notions of clemency. There is also ample evidence to show that the pardoned rebels bitterly resented the disabilities imposed on them by the monastery. Still, it is important to keep in mind the horror with which sixteenth-century authorities beheld any insurrection by the lower orders. Given the hideous punishments then routinely meted out to even petty criminals, the monks themselves must have felt they were acting with exemplary restraint. Although there never was another mass revolt at Ottobeuren, this did not mean that the peasantry had finally been cowed into submission. Religious dissent survived by going underground. Thus, when an Anabaptist was apprehended in nearby Erkheim in 1530, the ensuing interrogation revealed that the sect had secret members in at least two Ottobeuren villages.91 Crypto-Protestantism 87

88

89

90

91

Scholars have paid very little attention either to the Urfehde as an institution or to the documents it generated. A helpful introduction may be found in Andrea Boockmann, “Urfehde und ewige Gefangenschaft im mittelalterlichen Göttingen,” Studien zur Geschichte der Stadt Göttingen Band 13 (Göttingen, 1980). See also G. Steinwascher, “Die Osnabrücker Urfehdeurkunden,” Osnabrücker Mitteilungen 89 (1983), pp. 25–59. Thus, for example, the Urfehdebrief of Jacob Ornenberg of Ottobeuren, who turned himself in “of [my] own free will at the pleasure and displeasure [of the Abbot] but my life guaranteed.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 291F, ff. 467v–470r [3 Feb. 1526]. Similarly the Urfehdebrief of Martin Müller, joiner of Ottobeuren. Ibid., Document 291G, ff. 470r–472v [23 Feb. 1526]. Ibid., Documents 291J, ff. 477r–481r (Urfehdebrief of Adam Mayr of Ottobeuren [25 Aug. 1526]), 291O, ff. 491r–493r (Urfehdebrief of Hans Konlin of Ottobeuren [3 Feb. 1527]), 293A, ff. 552r–555v (Urfehdebrief of Martin Aberöll of Stephansried [9 Feb. 1526]), and 293J, ff. 634r–636r (Urfehdebrief of Balthas Traber of Ollarzried [2 Nov. 1525]). This man was an object of particular vilification in the older monastic chronicles, and this reputation has passed down via Feyerabend into Baumann. In fact, it turns out that he was not even a miller (his surname was “Müller”), and that after intervention by Anna von Freundsberg he was grudgingly allowed by the Abbot to return to his home village. See Feyerabend, Ottenbeuren Jahrbücher, Vol. III, pp. 69–70 and Baumann, Allgäu, Vol. III, p. 141. The letter of intervention from Anna von Freundsberg has been preserved in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 2, Document 176, ff. 310r–v [14 Feb. 1528]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Documents 304P, ff. 920r–922r and 308H, ff. 1069v–1072r (Urfehdebriefe of Hanns Sumer of Sontheim and Gallus Schmidt of Niederrieden [both 19 May 1530]).


33

was punished harshly in the monastery lands, and Anabaptists in particular were subjected to incarceration, exile, and the revocation of their land leases.92 Nevertheless, as late as 1547, more than twenty years after the end of the Peasants’ War, the monastery was shocked to discover in the village of Sontheim a “secret clandestine hidden conventicle” of peasants who gathered to listen to heretical sermons. Significantly, the conventicle included leaders of the revolt of 1525. Its activities were also abetted by the reformist sympathies of the local parish priest. The Abbot regarded the very existence of the conventicle as treason pure and simple, and all participants were clapped into prison. The conventicle was dissolved and the priest was banished.93 Political opposition among the peasantry was still longer lived. In 1561 a certain Barthlome Schückh – again of Sontheim – was arrested for his “wicked, unseemly and rebellious plots, advice and deeds, [both] secretly and publicly uttered and committed.” A specification of these misdeeds is not recorded in his Urfehdebrief, but we do know that he was ordered on pain of fines and imprisonment henceforth to avoid all secret gatherings and meetings and was forbidden to come to the officially sanctioned meetings of the Gemeinde.94 The implication is transparent, and the Abbot was to struggle mightily to stamp out shadowy, unofficial village assemblies. His efforts do not, however, seem to have been crowned with success. Although the fragmentary criminal court papers do not reveal what was discussed or achieved at these illicit gatherings, they do record the arrest of dozens of people at a time in the hamlet of Ollarzried (1582)95 and in the villages of Hawangen (1578),96 Böhen (1586),97 Benningen (1597),98 and Günz (1602).99 92

93

94

95 96 98 99

StAA, KU Ottobeuren 1449 [3 Nov. 1553]. Mathias Schwegelin of Böhen loses his lands for having become an Anabaptist. He had been admitted to one Hof in 1541 and a second in 1551. In 1546 he ranked in the top 13.5 percent of Böhen taxpayers. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, ff. 56r and 90r; KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 21v–23v. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Documents 304V–X, ff. 940v–949r (Urfehdebriefe of Georg Gerhardt and Paul Wagner of Sontheim, Hans Menneler alias Nestelin and Hans Hölzlin of Sontheim, and Barthlome Bärtlin “now preacher in Wöringen,” respectively dated 26, 29, and 16 August 1547). Hans Menneler alias Nestelin not only had participated in the Peasants’ War, he had been elected “to the inner Council of Four” of the rebels. Ibid., Document 304M, ff. 909v–913r (Urfehdebrief of Hans Menneler alias Nestelin [9 Sep. 1527]). Ibid., Document 304F, ff. 890v–894v (Urfehdebrief of Barthlome Schückh of Sontheim [3 May 1561]). Note that in that same week at least twelve other men were arrested for similar offenses in Sontheim. Ibid., Document 304G, ff. 895r–897r (Urfehdebrief of Hans, Jörg, and Heus Stedele, Hans Schneider, Ambrosi Widenmann, Hans Meichelböckh, Martin Schmidt, Augustin Lamp, Blesy Rewel, Jacob Walther, and Hans Grabusser [30 April 1561]). These eleven confessed that “we showed and proved ourselves to be rebellious and in other ways obstinate and disobedient to the authorities.” Also ibid., Document 304H, ff. 897r–901r (Urfehdebrief of Christa Hörman of Sontheim [3 May 1561]). His offense was word-for-word the same as Barthlome Schückh’s. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I. “Straf- und Frevelregister 1546–1592/3,” Heft 12 (1582/3). 97 Ibid., Heft 14 (1586/7). Ibid., Heft 9 (1578/9). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II. “Straf- und Frevelregister 1593–1615,” Heft 19 (1597/8). Ibid., Heft 22 (1602/3).

34


But opposition to the lordship of the monastery was not always so furtive. Open and even brazen defiance of authority was already apparent in the immediate aftermath of the Peasants’ War. The Swabian League’s reparations tax, for example, encountered instant resistance from the Ottobeuren peasantry. Often this went no further than public insolence, as in the case of one Niederrieden peasant’s remark: “I would gladly pay the reparations tax if only the Peasants’ War would continue.”100 Other cases were more serious. Claus Guggeisen of Niederrieden made speeches against the tax. He proposed that the village wait and see if others would join the opposition before handing out any money and cursed those of his neighbors who went ahead and paid.101 Worse was yet to come. Although upon release from prison the rebels had all sworn new oaths of fealty to the Abbot, many of them went straight back to political agitation. Jerg Schalckh of Frechenrieden reswore his oath, but then turned around and declared, “Had I not [just] sworn [fealty] to my lord, I would never do it again! He is not my lord and I will not have him for my lord!”102 His neighbor Martin Schorer stood up in front of the officially appointed village council and burst into a series of slogans including “The lesser shall take the place of the greater” and – perhaps less subversively but certainly more pungently – “I shit upon you.”103 Hans Hewel attacked a passing nobleman and attempted to stab and strangle him, all the while howling “I will never swear loyalty to any lord for the rest of my life.”104 Most voluble of all was a certain Ulrich Blenck from the perennial troublespot of Sontheim who outrageously and with great impudence and in order that the village should turn false and obstinate and be moved to disobedience did rebuke my gracious lord of Ottobeuren that he [the Abbot] was no spiritual lord and in his dealings worthy of no honor or dignity and in the same way [did rebuke] His Grace the said Obervogt and all the other officials and servants in the monastery that they were tyrants and worthy of no honor and did also say I could never gain justice from them and from [the village officials] of Sontheim, who are also villains, the Turk is a juster lord and once I am released [from prison] I will keep no oath [made there].105 100 101 102 103 104 105

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 308E, ff. 1063r–1065v (Urfehdebrief of Jörg Deckhler of Niederrieden [14 June 1526]). Ibid., Document 308D, ff. 1061r–1063r (Urfehdebrief of Claus Guggeisen of Niederrieden [25 June 1526]). Ibid., Document 301B, ff. 810r–813r (Urfehdebrief of Jerg Schalckh of Frechenrieden [24 Apr. 1526]). Ibid., Document 301C, ff. 813r–816r (Urfehdebrief of Martin Schorer of Frechenrieden [24 Apr. 1526]). Ibid., Document 293C, ff. 614r–616r (Urfehdebrief of Hans Hewel of Hohenheim [15 Mar. 1526]). Ibid., Document 304O, ff. 914v–920r (Urfehdebrief of Ulrich Blenck of Sontheim [3 Nov. 1529]).


35

The Abbot’s “pacified” subjects, he must ruefully have realized, were as stubborn and refractory as ever. But if there were limitations on how far the monks could coerce the peasants, there were also limitations on how far the peasants could, or even wanted to, weaken their overlord. The enhanced property rights secured over the course of the fifteenth century now gave the peasants a considerable investment in the lordship of the monastery as the most effective guarantor of those rights. The tenant, it must be emphasized, sought security not only against the fiscal claims of his overlord, but also against the encroachments of his neighbors. Thus in Erblehen charters, the monastery routinely promised not only to leave the rent unchanged, but also to warrant the tenant’s rights against rival claimants. Major confrontations between the monastery and its subjects therefore almost always took the form of negotiation. Violent rebellion was rare. Moreover, by the early 1500s, a century’s experience of blustering and haggling had established a familiar and reliable formula for peasant negotiation with the monastery. Grievances which the monastery refused to redress were regularly appealed to a higher authority, usually the Holy Roman Emperor. The Emperor would then commission some prominent authority – the Abbot of Weingarten, Truchsess Georg von Waldburg, the Bishop of Augsburg, etc. – as a mediator. Mediation invariably forced the monastery to disgorge at least some concessions, while preserving its essential prerogatives intact. Occasionally there are indications that the negotiating process was aborted, as in 1499 when the monastery effectively bought off two of its subjects who had filed suit in the Reichskammergericht in order to gain imperial confirmation of a charter of freedom.106 Most of the time, however, overlord and subjects kept to a time-honored script which minimized hostility and embarrassment on both sides. Thus, when Leonhard Widenmann was elected Abbot in 1508, the monastery’s subjects were enjoined to swear an oath to remain “true, responsible, liable to service, obedient and servant-like [Pothmeßig], to advance His Grace’s and [the] cloister’s benefit and godliness and to warn [them] of [any] danger . . . and to seek or accept no other defender or protector besides His Grace.”107 The peasants tactfully replied that they would “gladly” accept the new abbot as their lord and swear loyalty to him, “But they [still] had a grievance with His Grace and his cloister regarding wood [use rights], as His Grace knew, and added that they hoped that His Grace would therefore come to an agreement with them about this.”108 The Abbot took the hint – the peasants had already brought the matter before the Holy Roman Emperor – and promptly 106 107

Copy of the agreement in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 2, Document 139, ff. 226r–228r. 108 Ibid., f. 243v. Ibid., Document 149, f. 243r.

36


concluded an agreement guaranteeing his subjects access to wood for fuel and building.109 Of course, the veneer of civility was not always maintained, and the monastery did from time to time simply arrest peasants it suspected of sedition. In 1530, for example, Gregori Epplin of Ollarzried was obliged to confess that in violation of [my oath] I did keep and bear with me a spear and did also a few days ago in the market town of Ottobeuren on the street when ordered by Anthoni Zettler, the bailiff of the Bishop of Augsburg, to pay the head tax, for wicked reasons and out of insolence outrageously declare “I will give you nothing! Instead I will first await the decision of the Diet in Augsburg [although] I doubt I will be satisfied with it in this and other matters.” Now were this outrageous talk, which did not become me at all and whereby my [true] intentions may be recognized, to have reached the Common Man, nothing less than another uprising and rebellion like the one which already happened could have resulted.110 In this case, however, the monastery seems to have lost its nerve. It had been only five years since the Peasants’ War, and Epplin’s status as an ex-rebel doubtless made the monks particularly jittery. All the same, the fact that Epplin’s offense consisted in refusing to pay taxes pending a ruling by the Imperial Diet underscores the adherence of most peasants to established legal channels of protest. A similar legalism was evinced by six men arrested five years later in Sontheim, who confessed that in the space of just a few days we did of our own undertaking [and] without the knowledge and permission of our lord two or three times call together and hold a meeting of the village community [Gemeinde] of Sontheim, and did draw up among ourselves a number of pretended articles against our gracious lord and did thus form a conspiracy.111 Here again, the “conspiracy” to which these men were obliged to confess bore all the hallmarks – a convocation of the village community, the drafting of articles of complaint, etc. – of time-honored112 methods of articulating grievances. There is no indication that violence was attempted or even contemplated. In the end, the monastery itself recognized the limited nature of the Sontheimers’ challenge; all of the “ringleaders” were released from prison on Urfehde oaths. 109

110 111

112

Ibid., Document 150, ff. 244r–247r. The peasants were divided into four wealth classes. The members of the richest class were to receive 7 claffter of firewood per annum, the members of the next class 4, the next class 3, and then the poorest class 2 claffter of firewood per annum. Ibid., Document 293K, ff. 636r–640v (Urfehdebrief of Gregori Epplin of Ollarzried [7 Nov. 1530]). Ibid., Document 304R, ff. 924r–928v (Urfehdebrief of Hans Stelzlin, Thoma Schussman, Bartolme Dreysser, Clas Mayer, Hans Vögelin the Blacksmith, and Hans Widenmann [all 12 Apr. 1535]). See StAA, KU Ottobeuren 1397 [11 Apr. 1551]. Abbot Caspar grants the peasantry of the hamlet of Günzegg the right of assembly.


37

Now, to emphasize the negotiated and legalistic nature of these confrontations between the peasants and their overlord is not to pretend that they were amicable, or that concessions were cheerfully made. In all of these instances, the relationship of the two sides was clearly adversarial. At the same time, the great German Peasants’ War has cast so long a shadow over the historiography of this era that violent uprising has come to be seen as the most authentic expression of peasant attitudes to lordship. Some historians go so far as to view 1525 as the final consummation of a “crisis of feudalism,” when the internal contradictions of lordship in all its forms precipitated “an effort to overcome the crisis . . . through a revolutionary transformation of socio-political relations.”113 I find this apocalyptic vision implausible. In the first place, the structure of late medieval Swabian lordship proved to be rather more durable than some historians would like, remaining unchanged in its essentials from the close of the fifteenth century to the Napoleonic era. Moreover, and as has been seen, in 1525 the Ottobeuren peasantry were not a people with their backs to the wall. Far from reeling under the assault of a seigneurial reaction, they had been paring back the claims of the monastery and consolidating their own property rights for more than a century. Indeed, at least at Ottobeuren, the Peasants’ War itself began as a traditional form of landlord–tenant bargaining. After some initial tensions between the monastery and the burghers of the market town of Ottobeuren in September of 1524,114 open discontent erupted in February of 1525 when the villages of Sontheim and Attenhausen refused to swear loyalty to the Abbot. Joined by the residents of the market town and other of the monastery’s subjects, the peasants called for a meeting on 20 February to discuss their grievances among themselves.115 The response of the monastery to these events is highly significant. The Abbot was clearly worried; the monastic chroniclers concede 113

114

115

Peter Blickle, The Revolution of 1525, trans. Thomas A. Brady Jr. and H. C. Erik Midelfort (Baltimore, 1981), p. 187. The same conclusion (word for word) in the third edition (1993), p. 289. Franz Ludwig Baumann, ed. Akten zur Geschichte des deutschen Bauernkriegs aus Oberschwaben (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1877), no. 58b, p. 35. The actual substance of the dispute is not reported, but a charter issued by Emperor Charles V on 4 November 1524 suggests that it again concerned the autonomy of the market town, centering on the appointment procedures for the Amman and Vierer. The election procedure underwent a slight modification: instead of the Abbot choosing the Amman from two candidates proposed by the Gemeinde, the Gemeinde was now to choose from two candidates proposed by the Abbot (see Peter Blickle, Memmingen: Historischer Atlas von Bayern [1967], Vol. IV, Munich, p. 63. There is a copy of the new agreement in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 2, ff. 304r–305r). It is unclear whether this development represented a victory for the monastery. The Abbot himself was clearly unhappy with the outcome, for in 1536 he complained to the Emperor that the current election procedure allowed for too much meddling by the townspeople, and that the language of the agreement was marred by the “most grievous deficiencies.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 2, Document 183, ff. 331v–333r. Baumann, Akten zur Geschichte des deutschen Bauernkriegs, no. 58b, p. 36.

38


that he sent to the cities of Ulm and Kempten to buy a few weapons.116 It is none the less clear from other sources that the Abbot was also willing, indeed eager, to negotiate, and promised his subjects that “what[ever] other peasants [should] receive from dukes, lords, cities or prelates, that they should also receive from him, and [he] was willing to concede this immediately.”117 Mediated by the Bürgermeister and City Council of Memmingen, the negotiations seem to have lasted at least into the beginning of March.118 Shortly thereafter, however, matters took a turn for the worse, and on 30 March119 the monastery was stormed and plundered by its own subjects; “not a single foreigner was there,” a neighboring chronicler noted.120 The monastery complex was plundered from end to end. The windows were smashed, the monastery’s cattle were driven off, the church was desecrated, and then every scrap of paper the peasants could find was delivered up to the flames.121 On 8 April the revolt culminated in a posse of spear-toting peasants breaking into the nearby 116

117

118

119

120

121

“Abt Leonhard beschickte von Kempten 60 Pf. Pulver, welche damals 7 fl. 44 kr. kosteten, und von Ulm für fünf Gulden Helleparten und Speise. Eine gewiß nicht allzufeindlich gemeinte Rüstung.” Feyerabend, Ottenbeuren Jahrbücher, Vol. III, p. 33. The full text of the Memmingen Ratsprotokoll, dated 18 February 1525 is: “Ferner die pfarleut zu Ottenbewrn und ander haben auch beschwerung gegen dem abt, derhalb ain tag auf montag [20 Feb.] die bawrschaft under inen zelbs zusamen bei Yttenbewrn uff der Lindaw zusamen zu komen und der andern bawrschaft maynung zu vernemen [angesetzt]. Der Abt het den tag gern gewend, aber das nit erheben mugen. Es hab inen auch der abt zugesagt, was ander bawrn bei fursten, herrn, stetten oder prelaten erlangen, das sollen sy bei ime auch erlangt haben, und wel ihen dasseb yetz schon zugeben haben. Solhs alles hab dem abt nit mugen helfen.” Baumann, Akten zur Geschichte des deutschen Bauernkriegs, no. 58b, p. 38. Suggested by the following entry in the Memmingen Ratsprotokolle, dated 1 March 1525: “Den von Yttenbewrn ist die Antwurt geben, ain rat hab bißher trewlich zu in gesetzt, geraten und geholfen als gute nachpawrn, das wel man noch thun und in beholfen und beraten sein, sovil sy inen schuldig seien zu thun und pillich ist, wa sy auch not als gut nachpawrn etwas darin handlen kinden, das erpeut sich ain rat von ainer gantzen gemaind wegen gutwillig.” On 15 March the Ratsprotokoll notes that “Den bawrn von Yttenbewrn ist verzigen, den Helfer hinaußzulaßen.” Ibid., pp. 39, 41. The sack is often misdated to 2 April, probably based on the report that day of the incident to the council of the Swabian League by its commander Ulrich Artzt. Wilhelm Vogt, ed. “Die Correspondenz des schwäbischen Bundeshauptmannes Ulrich Artzt von Augsburg aus den Jahren 1524–1527,” Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Schwaben und Neuburg [henceforth ZVSN] 7 (1880), no. 170, pp. 234–6. It is clear, however, from the account in the Irsee monk P. Marcus Furter’s “Historia Belli Rusticorum” (“nam diebus ante actis [31 Mar.] ipse Johannes Melder fui in monsterio ottenburano, quod simili modo eorum subdti capitavere”) that Ottobeuren was stormed no later than 30 March. Franz Ludwig Baumann, ed., Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkriegs in Oberschwaben (Tübingen, 1876), p. 329. Artzt must (unsurprisingly) have learned about the incident a few days after it took place. “Item das clostern Ottenbeuren ward eingenomen von den aygnen pauren, kain fremder dabey, das zerrussen sy jämerlich, hielteß in, ach geplindert.” Remarks of Nicolaus Thoman, chaplain of the St. Leonharduskapelle in Weissenhorn in his “Weissenhorner Historie.” Baumann, Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkriegs in Oberschwaben, p. 93. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Documents 291D–G, ff. 461r–472v (Urfehdebriefe of Jacob Kimerlin, Jacob Unglert, Jacob Ornenberg, and Martin Müller all of Ottobeuren [21 Oct. 1525, 3 and 26 Feb. 1526]).


39

Franciscan convent of Maria Garten in search of the Abbot himself. As their quarry had already taken the rather sensible precaution of decamping, however, the angry pursuants were reduced to the fruitless exercise of poking through the haystacks of the surrounding countryside.122 Traumatic as this eruption of violence undoubtedly was (and monastic chroniclers would continue to dwell on it for hundreds of years to come), I find it more significant that the peasants had resumed negotiations with the Abbot in less than a week.123 In other words, before the Treaty of Weingarten (which dissolved the Upper Swabian peasant armies) on 17 April, and long before the armed forces of the Swabian League actually moved into the Ottobeuren lands in early July,124 the monastery peasants had returned to the traditional form in which the revolt had begun. At least at Ottobeuren, therefore, the Peasants’ War does not seem to have aimed at a fundamental transformation of socio-political relations. Instead, the “Revolution of 1525” looks much more like another episode in the time-honored process of negotiation for advantage between the peasants and their overlord, except that this time the process spun briefy out of control. But if the Peasants’ War at Ottobeuren was conventional in both its origins and most of its course, why did it ever take a radical turn at all? This is in fact an old problem, for it has long been recognized that in many regions the rebellion began with a “moderate” phase, followed by a “radical” phase. Some historians have suggested that the peasants were radicalized by the intransigence of their overlords. The more common understanding, however, is that the resort to “Godly Law,” i.e. the appeal to the Bible as a test of the legitimacy of the social order, impelled the peasanty to take more drastic action than was possible on the basis of the traditional invocation of custom, or “Old Law.” There is much truth in both of these readings. On the one hand, there is unambiguous evidence that the largest peasant mobilization in the Ottobeuren lands was sparked by the news that the army of the Swabian League was advancing upon them. On the other hand, the activities of crypto-Protestant radicals, above all the parish priest of the village of Sontheim, also played a decisive role in the assault on the monastery. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that both of the foregoing visions are conversion narratives, i.e. they also assume that the peasants spoke with a single voice which subsequently changed its tune. This is in many ways an odd assumption, for it has long been known that even at 122 123

124

Feyerabend, Ottenbeuren Jahrbücher, Vol. III, pp. 53–4. The peasants met to discuss negotiations on 14 April (ibid., pp. 55–6) and dispatched a letter to the Abbot the following day. Baumann, Akten zur Geschichte des deutschen Bauernkriegs, no. 225, p. 238. The military commander of the League’s army, Truchsess Georg von Waldburg, was ordered to restore the Abbot of Ottobeuren (and punish his subjects, “welche sich für ander ungeschickt gehalten haben”) only on 4 July 1525. Vogt, ed. “Die Correspondenz des schwäbischen Bundeshauptmannes Ulrich Artzt,” ZVSN 9 (1882), p. 42 (no. 566).

40


the high tide of the revolt serious differences of opinion separated the peasant bands within Upper Swabia. As early as the first week of March 1525, wrangling over the redaction of the peasant army’s Field Ordinance revealed the Lake Constance and Allgäu bands to have been much more defensive-minded than the Baltringen band. Indeed, differences were so strong that the Lake Constance and Allgäu bands ultimately did not go to the aid of the Baltringen band when the Swabian League moved against it in April. The scale of this disunity was also known to the League itself, and is much commented upon in the suriviving correspondence between the League and its generals. Crucially, this dissension seems at times to have had a social dimension. In the Habsburg lands Archduke Ferdinand I went so far as openly to seek the separation of the “notables” among the rebels from the “common rabble.” In the same way, Heinz Dopsch has pointed out that during the uprisings in Salzburg in 1525/6, the propertied tenant farmers (Bauern) continued to negotiate with the Archbishop while the rural proletariat “who had nothing to lose, joined the revolt en masse.” A similar pattern obtained at Ottobeuren: those who sacked the monastery in March were not the same people, and in particular not the same kind of people, who reopened negotiations with the Abbot in April. By all accounts the Peasants’ War began at Ottobeuren in the market town of the same name, and was initially led by the wealthy burgher Hans Konlin, who was elected “highest leader and special councilor and ruler” of the rebels. In the monastery lands as a whole, those who instigated and led the revolt were also overwhelmingly (79.4 percent) drawn from the ranks of the Bauern, or Hof-tenants.125 The sack of the monastery, on the other hand, was headed by someone from the opposite end of the social spectrum: a poor Seldner, or cottager, and former mercenary from the village of Sontheim who made himself military commander of the revolt’s radical phase. This second man is not named in Feyerabend’s narrative,126 but he was almost certainly one Hans Nestelin of Sontheim, to whom the rebels in nearby Kamlach appealed for military assistance,127 and who later confessed to having been elected 125

126

127

See the discussion in my “The Social Origins of the German Peasants’ War in Upper Swabia,” Past and Present 171 (2001), pp. 30–65. The monastery records name ninety-seven instigators and leaders of the revolt. Of these, seventy-seven were Bauern, fourteen were Seldner, and the remaining six cannot be classified with certainty. Austrian and Salzburg evidence at p. 57. The man is described by Feyerabend as a Söldner, which can mean either “cottager” or “mercenary” (cf. Feyerabend, Ottenbeuren Jahrbücher, Vol. III, p. 61 for an instance where Söldner unequivocally means “cottager”). The latter reading does gain support from the man’s assumption of military leadership, but the two possibilities are hardly mutually exclusive. Not only were mercenaries disproportionately recruited from the humbler ranks of rural society, but Feyerabend’s own source, the “Chronologia Ottoburana” of Gallus Sandholzer (c. 1600) explicitly describes the man as “a poor Söldner from Sontheim” (“ain armer söldner von Sontheim”). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 8 (Mü.B), ff. 717–18. Pfister Hans zu Kamlach to Hans Nestele, Hauptmann zu Sontheim c. 13 April 1525. Vegt, ed. “Correspondenz des schwäbischen Bundeshauptmannes Ulrich Artzt,” ZVSN 7 (1880), no. 206, p. 269.


41

128

He is listed in the 1525 tax roll to the rebel “inner council of four.” as a Seldner.129 Nestelin was by no means the only member of the “radical poor.” It is admittedly difficult to divide the rebels of 1525 into “traditionalists” and “radicals.” Much of the pillaging was clearly motivated by purely material motives. The Ottobeuren humanist Nikolaus Ellenbog liked to recount the story of a peasant who stole a world map from the monastery; his wife then washed the map off so she could use the linen it was painted on.130 This said, several of the surviving Urfehdebriefe detail actions redolent of a militant opposition to the lordship of the monastery. Although the number of these documents is not large, it is striking that two-thirds of the identifiable “radicals” were the craftsmen and Seldner (smallholders) who were underrepresented among the uprising’s instigators (see Table 1.2). Furthermore, there are clear indications that the radical phase of the revolt at Ottobeuren ran against the wishes of the rural elite. Leonhard Hagg, a prosperous tenant farmer (Bauer) and the Amman of the village of Sontheim, opposed both the revolt and the activities of the crypto-Protestant parish priest, Leonhard Gantner.131 The April 14 meeting at which it was agreed to resume negotiations with the Abbot was attended by Conrad Steuer, the Amman of Altisried, Hans Scheuffelin, the Amman of Frechenrieden, and Thoma Schußman of Sontheim – all of them major landholders – and approved by the wealthy Hans Konlin.132 And all of this at a time when the military commanders of the Winzer and Allgäu bands were appealing to the rebels at Ottobeuren to join in an attack on the Swabian League.133 The foregoing sociology of the Peasants’ War brings us to a third fundamental feature of Ottobeuren rural society in the later Middle Ages: its subdivision into sharply differentiated and at times antagonistic subsets. If the extension and consolidation of peasant property rights reshaped the relation between overlord and subject, the markedly uneven distribution of those rights among the peasants had equally momentous consequences for the internal sociability of the rural community. By the eve of 1525, the tenurial developments of the previous two 128

129 130 131 132

133

“zu einem innigen Rath der Vierer.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 304M, ff. 909v–913r, Urfehdebrief (copy) of Hans Minneler genannt Nestelin [9 Sep. 1527]. The original charter may be found in StAA, KU Ottobeuren, Neuburger Urkundensammlung G179. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541 (2), ff. 36r–41r. Ellenbog, Briefwechsel, 329 [18 May 1534]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541 (2), f. 40v; Feyerabend, Ottenbeuren Jahrbücher, Vol. III, p. 62. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541 (2) ff. 31v, 40r. As will be seen, an Amman was by definition a Bauer. Feyerabend, Ottenbeuren Jahrbücher, Vol. III, p. 55. Feyerabend’s account is taken from Sandholzer’s “Chronologia Ottoburana,” the relevant extract of which is printed in Baumann, Akten zur Geschichte des deutschen Bauernkriegs, no. 225a, p. 238. Martin Purssjäger, commander of the Winzer band, and the commanders of the Allgäu band to the commanders of the Ottobeuren band 13 April 1525: “szo ist main und derselben mainung und beger, das ir wollendt zu uns gen Suntheym rucken und ziehn da werdn wir . . . unßer faind haimsuchen.” Vogt, ed. “Die Correspondenz des schwäbischen Bundeshauptmannes Ulrich Artzt,” ZVSN 7 (1880), no. 206, p. 269.

42


Table 1.2 Social status of Ottobeuren “radicals,” 1525 Name and village

Doc. (StAA, KL Ottob. 4)

Peter Räwel (Ottobeuren)

291H; 473r–477r

Hans Hewel (Hohenheim)

293C; 614r–616r

Balthas Traber 293J; 634r–636r (Ollarzried) Johann Ruoff (Schoren) 293L; 640v–642v Caspar Maier (Niederdorf)

297A; 738r–741r

Balthas Weidle (Wolfertschwenden) Jerg Unglert Sr. (Wolfertschwenden)

298A; 751v–753r

Jerg Schalckh (Frechenrieden)

301B; 810r–813r

Gori Schütz (Attenhausen)

303A; 835v–838v

298B; 753v–758v

Declared offense Brought a “heretical priest” to Ottobeuren, received the sacrament in both kinds from him; abolished the singing of the Salve Regina Attacked passing nobleman; attempted to kill him, shouted “I will never swear loyalty to any lord for the rest of my life” Preached “misleading heretical materials, called Lutheran” Declared that nothing should be given to lords or creditors Shouted “I want to help strangle the monks” and helped search for them Forced the parish priest to say mass in German Declared “What good is that heap of stones, the monastery? It should be burned” Declared “The Abbot of Ottobeuren is not my lord . . . I will not have him for my lord” Wanted “to establish the Gospel . . . according to my own understanding”

Class (from KL 541 [2]) Tailor

Bauer

Seldner Seldnera Tailor, Seldner Bauer Bauer

Seldner

Seldner

Note: a Johann Ruoff is not actually listed in the 1525 tax roll, but since Schoren was a tiny hamlet of only five households, all of them Bauern, we can be virtually certain that he was not a Bauer. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541 (2), f. 56v. Note that Ruoff’s Urfehdebrief is dated 15 September 1525, only one week after the tax roll itself was compiled (7 September 1525), so there is no reason to believe he was absent at the time of assessment.

centuries had endowed the propertied with an interest in both the landholding regime and lordship in general which the rural poor did not share. To be sure, the gap between rich and poor did not originate in the fifteenth century. Explicit references to cottage-cum-garden parcels, or Selden, appear at Ottobeuren as early as 1332 and in other Swabian lordships as early as 1236. More general evidence for the existence of smallholdings is older still and can be found in monastic charters of foundations such as Steinheim near Dillingen (1135/40) and Annhausen am Brenz (1143).134 As far back as the historical 134

Grees, Ländliche Unterschichten, pp. 10–23, 84–95.


43

50.0 40.0 Seldner

30.0 % of households 20.0

Bauern

10.0 0.0 1

2

3

4 5 6 7 Tax assessments in gulden

8

9

10

Figure 1.3 Wealth distribution in nine Ottobeuren villages, 1525 Note: The nine villages in question were Dietratried, Frechenrieden, Hawangen, Niederrieden, Ober- and Unterwesterheim, Oberwolfertschwenden, Schlegelsberg, and Sontheim. The Halbbauern have been counted as Bauern. Source: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541 (2)

record extends, therefore, the Swabian peasantry was a heterogeneous amalgam of rich and poor. Moreover, the scramble for tenants in the wake of the Black Death meant that the material conditions of the poor almost certainly improved during the century and a half which followed. All the same, the reality of rural poverty persisted none the less, and with the increasing juridification of social relations in the fifteenth century, the differences between rich and poor were formalized into glaring prominence in almost every facet of late medieval life on which documentation has survived. The aftermath of the Peasants’ War is in this respect as revealing an occasion as the uprising itself. For example, the reparations tax imposed by Abbot Leonhard upon his reinstatement was based on a fixed average amount to be collected per household, with each settlement left to apportion the burden among its members according to their wealth. Analysis of the tax register generated by this process produces three interesting results. First, the rural population was explicitly divided in the manuscript – apparently by the decision of the various Gemeinden – into two distinct groups: Bauern and Seldner (plus an occasional Halbbauer). Second, the two groups were sharply separated in terms of wealth (see Figure 1.3). Third, the decidedly poorer Seldner already made up 62.7 percent of the households. The compensatory labor services imposed at the same time also recognized the dichotomy: the Seldner were to provide a day’s work with their hands while the Bauern owed a day’s work with a team of draught animals. The Bauer/Seldner boundary was thus the Swabian expression

44


of that fundamental articulation of the West European peasantry: the distinction between those villagers who were substantial enough to operate a plough and team and those who were not.135 In and of itself the Bauer/Seldner divide is of course unremarkable, and the picture of a countryside dominated by a class of prosperous tenant farmers is by now a historiographical commonplace. It is less well appreciated, however, that the rural elite’s disproportionate share of economic resources went hand in hand with a stranglehold on the institutional expression of the rural community, i.e. the offices of the Gemeinde. The rural Gemeinde is something of a sacred cow in the literature on the German peasantry; it has apparently become impossible to discuss landlord–tenant relations without solemnly proclaiming “the bearer of resistance was the Gemeinde.” It is less often asked precisely who we mean by the Gemeinde. In theory most Swabian rural Gemeinden were composed of all the adult males in the village. The “community” thus did include both Bauern and Seldner, although women and day laborers were excluded. In terms of the actual exercise of authority, however, the Gemeinde at Ottobeuren consisted of a decidedly small group of people holding two kinds of offices: first, the Amman, or mayor, and second, the Vierer, or members of the “council of four.” In formal documents the Amman and Vierer regularly spoke “in the name of the entire Gemeinde.” With these five men we might also group the two churchwardens, who among other things oversaw the lending of parish funds (at 5 percent interest) to those in need of liquid capital. At Ottobeuren, both the Amman136 and the Vierer137 were appointed by the Abbot himself. The only exception to this rule was the market town of Ottobeuren, where the Abbot chose between two candidates proposed by the Gemeinde.138 What kind of people were appointed to these offices? The rich. A complete list of the Ottobeuren Ammänner is available for the year 1564.139 Every single one of them was a current or recently retired Hof tenant.140 Indeed, the link to property holding was so explicit that an Amman was often invested 135

136 137 138 139

140

Further clarification is provided by a c. 1551 ordinance requiring every Hof to be equipped with a plough and a wagon. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289X, ff. 368v–369r; “Bauding Buch Anno 1551 – Concerning the parish and inhabitants of Ottobeuren: Item the following articles govern all those who hold and work properties under Gotteshausrecht.” Identical provisions for those holding properties under this form of tenure in the nucleated villages are detailed on ff. 372r–v. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, “Rotulus Probationum,” Document 303A, ff. 835v–838v (1525). This is clear from StAA, KU Ottobeuren 433 [6 Oct. 1485]. Blickle, Memmingen: Historischer Atlas von Bayern, p. 63. The document in question is StAA, KL Ottobeuren (Mü.B) 25, “Leibeigenbuch 1564,” which has been edited as Richard Dertsch, ed. “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats vom Jahre 1564,” Allgäuer Heimatbücher 50 [Alte Allgäuer Geschlechter 34] (1955). Names of Ammänner checked against StAA, KL Ottobeuren 30, “Gültbuch 1567” and KL Ottobeuren 27, “Erdschatzbuch 1576–1603.” Note that Hans Bürklin, the Amman of Oberwesterheim, held his Hof from the Heilig-Geist Spital in Memmingen, rather than from the monastery of Ottobeuren. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 744b.


45

141

with his office and Hof at the same time. Although the monastery controlled appointment, the office sometimes passed from father to son.142 The social origins of the Vierer were no different. Although they are less often identified in the surviving records, twenty different Vierer from five different villages can be identified in the Ottobeuren notarial protocols for the year 1583/4;143 fully 95 percent of them were Hof tenants or (in the market town of Ottobeuren) among the wealthiest burghers in the town. Even the position of churchwarden, which was an explicitly elected office,144 was dominated by the same elite. Some twenty-two churchwardens can be identified from the period 1580–4; 91 percent of them were Hof tenants or wealthy townsmen.145 The monopolization of community offices by the rich does not mean that the Gemeinde was merely a vehicle for their own self-interest. It does mean, however, that the efforts to expand the autonomy and competence of the Gemeinde (widely regarded as one of the driving impulses of 1525) lay primarily in the interests of the rural elite.146 And even if the Gemeinde could not be “run” in the naked or exclusive interest of the Vollbauern, it certainly could be – and was – run disproportionately in their favor. The classic instance of this practice was the administration of village common lands. Most Swabian communities allotted “shares” of the common land use rights in proportion to the size of a peasant’s landholding.147 A Bauer was 141

142

143

144 145

146

147

Thus, for example, the following passage in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 211r: “Anno [15]39 ist Jergen Knab der Maÿerhoff zue Niderrieden sambt dem Aman ampt daselbst verlihen worden mit dem andern Anhang, ob er sich im Ambt ettwaß dem Gotzhaus widerwerttig halten oder denselben nach deß Gotzhaus Nutz nitt threwlich außwarten wurde, daß alsßdan mein gnediger Herr Mach hab, ime ab dem Maÿerhoff sambt dem Ambt widerumb zupiette[n].” For example, when Balthas Brög, the Amman of Attenhausen in 1548, died, his widow, Ursula Negelin, married Blesi Maierrog, who was admitted both to Brög’s Hof and to the office of Amman. Upon Maierrog’s death in 1568, property and office passed to his stepson Paul Brög (Balthas’ son), who remained Amman until his death in 1593. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 600, “Leibeigenbuch 1548,” f. 237v; KL Ottobeuren 27, ff. 125v, 128v, 133r. See also KL 30, ff. 69r–73r and KL 31, “Gültbuch 1584,” f. 7r. Vierer named in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 901, “Amtsprotokolle 1583–4,” ff. 25r (Benningen), 49r (Ottobeuren), 53v (Böhen), 67v–68r (Frechenrieden), and 92v (Niederrieden). Identifications from StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, KL Ottobeuren 31, and KL Ottobeuren 676a, “Steuerregister der Markt Ottobeuren 1585.” The townsmen were in the richest 14 percent of taxpayers. See the names of those “zu hailgen pfleger erwelt” in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 701, “Einkommen der Pfarrei Sontheim 1527–36.” Churchwardens named in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 901, ff. 45r (Sontheim), 60v–61r (Böhen), 62r (Dietratried), 122v (Ollarzried), 137r–v (Ottobeuren), and KL Ottobeuren 918, “Amtsprotokolle 1576–80,” ff. 12r (Niederdorf), 15v–16r (Altisried), 20r (Niederrieden), 46v–47r (Benningen), 58v–59r (Egg), and 69v (Schlegelsberg). Identifications as in note 141, also StAA, KA Ottobeuren 344, “Höfe und deren Verkauf zu Sontheim” and KL 491-I (3), “Leibhennenbuch 1587.” The townsmen were in the richest 7 percent of taxpayers. As argued by David Warren Sabean, Landbesitz und Gesellschaft am vorabend des Bauernkriegs: eine Studie der sozialen Verhältnisse im südlichen Oberschwaben in den Jahren vor 1525 (Stuttgart, 1972), p. 102. That this was also the case at Ottobeuren is clear from StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 94r. On 27 March 1581 Jerg Schmidt of Böhen was admitted to a Hof from which the monastery had separated 6 tagwerk of meadow and leased them to the village innkeeper, “darbey auch

46


entitled to maintain more livestock on the common meadow than a Seldner. He was allowed to take more wood from the common forest148 and was allotted a larger parcel of the common meadow when it was temporarily divided up and converted to arable land. The sixteenth century saw the beginning of a protracted struggle over this institutionalized inequity, as the Seldner – who felt the inferiority of their rights rather keenly – agitated for equal access to the common lands as a mechanism to counterbalance the growing disparity of wealth in the villages.149 At Ottobeuren, the best example of this kind of bias comes from the village of Böhen. When faced with the monastery’s demand for reparations taxes in the aftermath of 1525, the Gemeinde decided that there were fourteen Seldner householders in the village liable for payment. Eleven years later, however, by which point the number of Seldner had increased to about twenty-five,150 the Gemeinde decided that it was rather differently constituted. In 1536 the Böhen Gemeinde contracted an agreement with the monastery to clear and convert to meadow a wooded area near the village. The “larger part” of the cleared land was then to be assigned to the large farms held by the Bauern. The “smaller part” was to go to the village Seldner, who were declared to be only nine in number and were also required in exchange to surrender their collective rights to all but two jauchert of a pair of wooded areas known as the Bannholz and the Schweinwald.151 These manifest biases in the day-to-day operations of the Ottobeuren Gemeinde were equally evident in its conflicts with its overlord. Clashes between the monastery and its subjects can be documented as far back as the end of the thirteenth century, and by the 1460s the peasants were able to co-ordinate resistance in all of the monastery villages through the institution of the village mayorships.152 Nevertheless, the demands of these rural “communities” – many of which later reappeared in the Twelve Articles, the manifesto of the Peasants’ War of 1525 – often disproportionately reflect the interests of village oligarchs.

148 149

150

151

152

abgerödt, das Schmid denn uffschlag mit seinem viehe, nichtsdestoweniger wie von alters hero one abgang haben, niessen und gebrauchen soll” (emphasis mine). See note 109. Hermann Grees, Ländliche Unterschichten und Ländliche Siedlung in Ostschwaben, Tübinger Geographische Studien, Heft 58 [Sonderband 8] (1975), pp. 27–41. Similarly HansHermann Garlepp, Der Bauernkrieg von 1525 um Biberach a.d. Riß (Frankfurt a.M., 1987), pp. 113–17. Interpolating between the counts of twenty-nine households in 1525 (KL 541 [2], ff. 68r–69v) and forty households in 1546 (KL 64, ff. 21v–23v). The number of Bauern remained unchanged between these two dates. See also StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, ff. 55v–57v. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, “Lehenbuch 1550,” ff. 225r–226r. This volume is actually a Kopialbuch, or collection of document copies, recording land tenure charters (Lehensreverse) from the period 1300–1551. See the charter dated 19 October 1464 whereby the assembled Ammänner of all of the Ottobeuren villages refuse to pay taxes to the Bishop of Augsburg in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 2, ff. 151r–154r.


47

Table 1.3 Mean tax payment (kreuzer) in five Ottobeuren villages, 1546–8 Ottobeuren serfs

Serfs of other lords

Freemen

Village

N

kr.

N

kr.

N

kr.

Attenhausen Frechenrieden Sontheim Günz Egg Total

40 44 48 13 29 174

31.6 31.9 35.7 48.6 65.9 39.8

2 6 8 4 9 29

20.0 9.0 18.6 85.5 30.3 29.6

9 7 26 8 16 66

12.2 24.4 14.5 12.6 17.9 15.8

Source: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, 600

Since 1299, the most common source of friction at Ottobeuren (as elsewhere in Upper Swabia) was the death duties collected by the monastery from its serfs.153 The basic objection of the peasantry was that these death duties defeated inheritance. The actual material impact of these death duties will be discussed in chapter 3, but for the time being I would like to focus on the question of precisely who was liable for these payments. The primary mechanism for enserfment at Ottobeuren was admission to one of the large Höfe. The monastery insisted that only its own serfs were eligible for Hof tenancy.154 The passage from freedom to serfdom thus often also represented formal ascent into the rural oligarchy. Of course, serfdom (like freedom) was also a heritable status, and by the sixteenth century most of the inhabitants of the monastery lands were serfs either of Ottobeuren itself (56.6 percent) or of other lords (20.1 percent). Nevertheless, the imprint on rural society of the original connection between serfdom and Hof-tenancy was so strong that Ottobeuren serfs were on average much wealthier than either serfs of other lords or the free (see Table 1.3). But the privileged status of the Ottobeuren serfs was more than a mere statistical happenstance; it was explicitly reinforced in negotiations between the peasants and their overlord. In 1518, for example, the “entire Gemeinde” of Egg concluded an agreement with the monastery over wood usage rights in a nearby forest. The agreement allowed those who leased Gotteshausrecht Höfe from the monastery to take wood for building at no cost, but obliged those who held other kinds of property to pay for the same right.155 Three years later a subsequent agreement introduced a sliding scale of payments for the non-Hof tenants, but the basic disparity remained in force.156 153 154 155 156

Hoffmann, Urkunden, charter no. 52 [6 Mar. 1299]. See for example StAA, KU Ottobeuren 429, Lehensrevers [8 Apr. 1485]: Johann Hayden admitted to the smithy in Hawangen; he promises to remain a serf of the monastery. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 2, “Rotulus Probationum,” Document 160, ff. 281r–282r. Ibid., Document 167, ff. 296r–298v. Those who hauled their wood out with four horses (i.e. the more prosperous peasants) were to pay 2 kreuzer for their wood, while those who had only one or two horses to haul their wood were to pay 1 kreuzer.

48


The disparity was also resented. In July of 1521, an Imperial Commission headed by the Abbot of Weingarten and the Truchsess of Waldburg arbitrated a dispute between the Abbot of Ottobeuren and his subjects, “especially those who are affiliated through serfdom to other lords.” These serfs of other lords complained that the Abbot barred them from access not only to Gotteshausrecht farms, but also to Erblehen land. The Abbot cheerfully admitted his refusal to allow those “who were neither born nor raised in his lordship” to buy or rent land “without special conditions,” but insisted that he was fully within his rights to do so. In the end, the Commission did extract from the Abbot a promise to treat all of his subjects equally in this respect, “irrespective of whether they are his serfs [or not].”157 Nevertheless, it is clear that this promise was never really honored. The monastery’s registers do record the admission of non-Ottobeuren serfs to Gotteshausrecht land in the 1530s and 1540s, but only on condition – the same “special conditions” the Abbot adverted to in 1521 – that they become Ottobeuren serfs.158 The other major bone of contention at Ottobeuren was the Gülten, or grain rents, collected by the monastery from peasant landholdings. Disputes over these rents flared up in 1408159 and would later underlie the eighth of the Twelve Articles of 1525. Here again, the grievance was primarily the concern of the rural elite, because the monastery collected grain rents almost exclusively from lands held under Gotteshausrecht,160 almost all of which lands were the large Höfe farmed by the Bauern. Of course, not everyone who held land under Gotteshausrecht was rich, and the rich were not all Hof tenants, but the close overlap between the two groups is unmistakable (see Figure 1.4). Did all these inequities mean that Bauern and Seldner were constantly at each other’s throats? No. Each group needed the other too much to allow for that kind of infighting. Since the Seldner almost by definition could not maintain their own draught teams, they needed the help of the Bauer to plough their small plots of arable land and to cart produce and other goods. In a similar fashion, it was not possible for the Bauer families to meet the labor requirements of working 157 158

159 160

The original charter is apparently no longer extant; there is a copy in StAA, KL 2, “Rotulus Probationum,” Document 166, ff. 292v–295r [5 July 1521]. E.g. the grant of a Hof in Niederrieden to one Peter Schmidt in 1541: “he shall, however, give himself to the monastery in [lit. with] serfdom, otherwise the grant is void.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 212r. Even for an Ottobeuren serf, admission to a Hof might take place “with the condition, that he, when he marries, shall take a [wife] who is [either] a serf of the monastery, or [who] shall become one without cost to the monastery” (1542) or on condition that the serf’s wife and six children “as well as those which they [may] later have” become serfs of the monastery (1538). Ibid., ff. 125r, 81r. Hoffman, Urkunden, no. 174 [31 July 1408]. Comparison of the monastery’s rent rolls with its tax registers makes this clear. The pattern is most obvious in the more detailed records of the early seventeenth century, e.g. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 225 (“Gültbuch 1621/2”) and KL 102 (“Steuerbuch 1620”), but is already clear in their mid-sixteenth-century counterparts.


49

120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0

Gült payer

40.0 20.0 0.0 Figure 1.4 Tax payments (kr.) of Böhen households, 1546 Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, ff. 68r–69v and KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 21v–23v

the large Höfe, particularly with respect to seasonal and highly labor-intensive tasks such as meadow mowing, grain harvesting, etc. Accordingly, it became a common Swabian pattern for Bauern and Seldner to hire each other for tasks that they could not or found it difficult to perform for themselves. Although the existence of these labor-exchange arrangements may seem self-explanatory (and therefore undeserving of further comment), we would do well not to trivialize this aspect of Bauer–Seldner relations. Village ordinances often elevated these labor exchanges to the status of formal obligations, such that Bauern might be legally prohibited from putting their horses out to pasture before the fields of the Seldner had been ploughed. In other villages the local ordinances listed all the services which Bauern and Seldner were obliged to perform for each other and fixed the wage rates for each. Clearly, then, the reciprocal exchange of labor services across the divide between rich and poor was a central feature of Swabian village life.161 But even if relations between Bauern and Seldner were marked by a significant degree of co-operation, it would be misleading to describe the two groups as mutually interdependent. There is a tautological sense in which the Seldner were in much more pressing need of the services and employment opportunities provided by the Bauern than vice versa; this kind of dependence is, after all, what poverty has always entailed. And although the inevitable emotional consequences of a position of greater vulnerability – frustration, rage, and no doubt a great deal of envy – only rarely finds voice in the surviving records, it can but have left an indelible mark on social relations in the villages. When Georg 161

Grees, Ländliche Unterschichten, pp. 42–8.

50


Schorer of Buchenbrunnen’s chronically bad relations with his neighbors came to a head in 1582, he stationed himself outside their houses and shouted, “You should only work hard and [still] come to nothing! I will make you as poor as I am!”162 The outburst is a sobering reminder of the harsher side of the disparity between rich and poor that even the most communitarian way of life could not erase. In 1329 Pope John XXII promulgated the bull Quia Vir Reprobus, in which he declared that property rights were an inherent and natural possession of all humankind. Even a solitary individual in the state of nature, simply by virtue of being human, had property rights over those material goods which he or she used. This argument was contested by members of the Franciscan Order, who insisted that property was purely a feature of social life, and in particular of human legal institutions. On this latter view, property was constituted not by the use or possession of an object, but by the owner’s ability either to convey his or her right to someone else, or above all to exclude others from the use of the good in question.163 As philosophy, the papal position has much to commend it, first and foremost its decisive contribution to the first Western theory of inherent universal human rights. As history, however, it obscures much of what was important about the new landholding regime established at Ottobeuren by the beginning of the sixteenth century. John XXII’s conception of property as a relation of person to thing does illuminate part of the significance of the tenurial developments discussed in this chapter. The prospect of more reliably or more exclusively profiting from the fruits of their labors provided the subjects of the monastery with a powerful incentive for greater productivity. Yet important as this perspective is, it suffers from the exclusive preoccupation with the decision-making of the atomized individual producer. By contrast, the Franciscan construction of property as a relationship between people with respect to the things allows us to focus on the distinctions and exclusions which necessarily accompanied the formalization of property rights at Ottobeuren. More clearly to specify what a Bauer had was also more sharply to demarcate what a Seldner did not have. Disparities of property rights segmented rural society into distinct communities of differential general privilege. And property, as shall presently be seen, was only the beginning of these divisions. 162

163

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 291NN, ff. 538r–548v (Urfehdebrief of Georg Schorer of Buchenbrunnen [28 Apr. 1584]). Schorer was not a subject of the monastery but hailed from the nearby lands of Jacob Fugger, lord of Kirchberg, Weissenhorn, and Babenhausen. A fugitive from the law, he was arrested at Ottobeuren by the monastery’s Vogt at Jacob Fugger’s request. Richard Tuck, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 20–4.

2. The discrete society (c. 1480–c. 1560)

Leonhard Hagg of Sontheim was a short-tempered man. Given prevailing peasant notions of honor and personal justice, it might be unfair to call his reactions to life’s disappointments those of a bad-tempered man, but a short-tempered man he certainly was. The disappointments themselves were real enough. Leonhard’s grandfather had emigrated to Sontheim from Gundelfingen in 1521, acquiring a large Hof and fishing rights in the river that ran through the village.1 He rose to become one of the richest men in Sontheim, and as village Amman distinguished himself (in the monastery’s eyes, at least) by opposing rebellion during the Peasants’ War of 1525.2 With his death in the 1530s,3 however, decline rapidly set in. It was not so much that the family lost its wealth, but rather that precious little of it – only the fishing rights – came to Leonhard’s own family. By Leonhard’s boyhood in the mid-1540s, his own father, Johann, had plummeted into the poorer half of Sontheim’s households, struggling to pay the rent for the fishwater while Leonhard’s grandmother retained both the Hof and her place among the Sontheim oligarchs.4 Leonhard’s father didn’t give up, and in 1550 he managed to secure the lucrative lease to the Sontheim inn.5 Leonhard was able to marry, and by the time of his father’s death in 1563, the heir apparent to the inn already had several children.6 But it was not to be. The Abbot transferred

1 2

3 4

5 6

StAA, KU Ottobeuren 923 [7 Jan. 1521]. The Hof measured 63 jauchert. KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 146r [13 Feb. 1592]. Leonhard Hagg senior’s 1525 tax payment put him in the top 5 percent of the village households. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541 (2), ff. 36r–41r. For his activities during the uprising, see Chapter 1, pp. 40–1. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 304Q, ff. 922r–924r [17 Nov. 1531] and Document 3045, 928v–934r [30 Feb. 1539]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 50r–52v, KL Ottobeuren 409, f. 23r; KL Ottobeuren 29, f. 72v. For a widow to be a Hof-tenant was a most unusual (and invariably temporary) arrangement; see below, pp. 54–5. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 140r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren (Mü.B) 25, f. 106. Leonhard’s Urfehdebriefe suggest that his father died in 1563. 51

52


the lease of the inn to a cousin, who, as it happens, had previously snapped up Grandfather Hagg’s Hof.7 Leonhard lost his temper. “The inn rightfully belongs to and should have been leased to me!” he shouted as the churchwarden vainly tried to calm him down. “I’ll shit in the Abbot’s cape and on his bald head!” He lost his temper again when the hospital of Memmingen canceled his lease on a meadow for non-payment of rent. Leonhard threatened both the new tenant and the Pfleger, or administrator of the hospital, vowing that he would kill “at least one of them, and where one arquebus wouldn’t do would buy two.” We don’t even know why he lost his temper with Augustin Lamp, although Lamp was himself hardly a model of Christian forbearance, having the previous year been found guilty of murder.8 Leonhard missed Lamp with his gaff hook; Lamp’s horse wasn’t so lucky and was seriously wounded. The affair with his dead brother’s son Hans began at least in the same way: there was a dispute, and Leonhard insulted his nephew. Here the pattern changes, for Hans was as proud as the next man and refused to let the insult pass. Instead of replying either in kind or with his fists, however, Hans resolved to take his uncle to court. This struck a nerve, for Leonhard regarded potential intervention by the authorities as unwelcome in the extreme. Accordingly, he confronted Hans in the village and remonstrated with him to leave the matter alone. The nephew proved obdurate, and Leonhard’s temper again got the better of him. He struck Hans with the flat of a machete and knocked him to the ground. This, understandably, only deepened the nephew’s resolve to seek legal redress. Hans picked himself up and headed for the market town of Ottobeuren. Leonhard went barreling after him on horseback. He overtook Hans just outside the village of Attenhausen and rode him into the ground. His fury still unabated, Leonhard leapt from his horse and proceeded to pummel his nephew’s prostrate body. A shocked passerby who called out for peace was told to hold his tongue or he would suffer the same fate.9 Reluctant as we may be to dignify Leonhard’s brutality through reference to an underlying principle, there was clearly more at work in this last act of violence than a short temper alone. For Leonhard,10 as for most of the Abbot’s subjects, the distinction between kin and non-kin was a boundary of enormous moral 7 8 9 10

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 30, ff. 73r–77r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 304AA, ff. 956r–963r [7 Mar. 1566]. Lamp had been paroled on an Urfehde oath. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Documents 304J and 304BB, ff. 901r–906r [8 Feb. 1563] and ff. 963v–969r [3 Mar. 1567]. Leonhard’s story has a fairly happy ending. He regained the fishing rights, married one Elisabeth Stroheubler after the death of his first wife, Margareta, and lived on in the village into his late fifties or early sixties. At Leonhard’s death in 1593, his son Enderas was admitted not only to the fishing rights, but to a large Hof of his own. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 157r; KL Ottobeuren 102, ff. 333v–334r.

The discrete society (c. 1480–c. 1560)

53

significance. Such was the respect accorded to the ties of blood and marriage that contact was maintained with relatives as far away as the Rhineland.11 For a relation actually to invite interference by the authorities in the matters of kin was therefore to subvert the most basic social category of village life.12 If an insider’s betrayal of the integrity of the kin group could bring down (or in Leonhard’s case intensify) the wrath of other members, an outsider’s affront was even more likely to provoke retribution. Allegiance to the kin group produced a sense of collective honor such that vengeance was often sworn on behalf of aggrieved relatives. Thus when Jacob Müller’s three sons were arrested in 1566, he declared that he would revenge himself on the “bodies and properties” of those responsible.13 Gallus Jung of Sontheim was still more explicit. After his wife was fined for an infraction in 1559, the enraged Gallus “did with many threatening words let it be known that [he] would kill and strike dead those who were responsible for [his] wife’s fine.”14 Not surprisingly, the peasants also felt that loyalty to the kin group transcended obligations to any external authority. Simon Bürklin of Egg was apprehended by the village Pittel, or sheriff, in 1532. The Pittel was attempting to transfer him to prison in the market town of Ottobeuren, when he was spotted by Bürklin’s brother Peter. Howling “Thief! Villain! Traitor!” Peter called together a collection of relatives and friends who then mounted a mass attack on the unfortunate Pittel.15 This resistance to outside interference actually had a quasi-legal status. Attacking the Pittel was of course illegal, but the monastery’s ordinances none the less extended a certain amount of deference to the kin of an offender. Let us consider the following passage from the “Bauding Buch Anno 1551”: Item when my gracious lord, or His Grace’s Vogt and officials send out a bailiff to catch and apprehend a [criminal], all those [who live] at the place sent to shall do nothing illegal or unpeaceful against the said bailiff either with words or deeds, actions or intentions, and whosoever shall be called upon to assist the said bailiff, be he Amman, Vierer or Hauptmann, judge or court official, shall do so without [any] objection, unless he who is called upon to help is by blood a member of the family or lineage of the person who is to be arrested, [in which case] he shall stand [aside] quietly and not interfere in the matter, and whosoever shall do so in any way, [whether] greatly or 11 12

13 14 15

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 293Q, ff. 656r–659v [20 Oct. 1558]. In this regard see also the case of Adam Maier of Rempolz, who was arrested for illegal financial dealings with Jews. He suspected his brother Ulrich of involvement with his arrest and seems to have threatened him on that account. After release from prison Adam was required to swear an Urfehde oath not only to the authorities but also to his brother. Ibid., Document 293F, ff. 621r–627v [20 May 1549]. Ibid., Document 295J, ff. 729v–735v [26 Oct. 1566]. Ibid., Document 304D, ff. 885v–888v [20 Mar. 1559]. Ibid., Document 309D, ff. 1137–1142r [1 Apr. 1532].

54


slightly, he shall whether man or woman be punished for his actions on his body and property.16 The monastery harbored few illusions about where the primary loyalty of its subjects lay. It may seem perverse to center a discussion of kinship around the violence generated by the imperative of group loyalty. Kinship has a host of different meanings, and is in any case more commonly analyzed by historians and anthropologists as a way of regulating access to property and marriage partners.17 On this view, the habit of distinguishing kin from non-kin is best understood in terms of its social function. My interest at this point, however, is more basic. I wish to focus on the habit of drawing distinctions itself. All societies, of course, draw at least some distinctions between the kinds of their members. What is noteworthy at Ottobeuren is the pervasiveness, rigor, and especially the public nature of the boundaries between categories of people, even within the intimate world of the village. Moreover, the import of these demarcations was not merely their outcome, i.e. that they powerfully influenced an individual’s rights, obligations, opportunities, and dangers (although this was certainly also the case). The compartmentalization of kinds of people made peasant life what it was; it was a constitutive feature of sixteenth-century rural society.18 The boundary between men and women was perhaps the most fundamental distinction of persons. Enemies could perhaps become friends, outsiders could with the right connections change their place of residence, and non-kin could marry into a lineage, but the disabilities placed on women were permanent. Women could not hold any community office. Each village did have an official midwife, but this was not a position which carried any political authority and was in any case subordinate to the village Amman.19 Women could not be tenants of Erblehen or Gotteshausrecht land. On rare occasions women were admitted to Gotteshausrecht farms, but this was invariably an interim solution prompted by the premature death of a husband or father. As soon as the designated male heir 16 17

18

19

Ibid., Document 289X, ff. 380v–381r. There is a helpful overview in David Warren Sabean, Kinship in Neckarhausen, 1700–1870 (1998), pp. 2–36. Sabean himself argues that “perhaps it is best to take a less preprogrammed view and regard kinship as an ‘idiom’ through which a great many relations are conceptualized and a great many transactions are negotiated” (p. 6). Similar disscussions of the centrality of boundary in German rural life may be found in Hermann Heidrich, “Grenzübergänge. Das Haus in der Volkskultur der frühen Neuzeit” in Richard van Dülmen, ed., Kultur der einfachen Leute: Bayerisches Volksleben vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1983), pp. 17–41 and John Theibault, German Villages in Crisis: Rural Life in Hesse-Kassel and the Thirty Years’ War, 1580–1720 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1995), pp. 45–66. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 12 (1582/3). Barthlome Lonnettnen and Hans Kharrer of Benningen fined £2 for having resorted to “foreign” midwives “behind the back of the Amman and Vierer.”


55

20

reached the age of majority, the Hof was transferred to him. Women could own freehold properties, but only under the supervision of two adult male guardians. In this respect women were thus equated with children. The restriction of a woman’s property rights exposed her to considerable danger if her husband was a wastrel, or, in the language of the time, a “bad householder.” Michael Blank of Ottobeuren, for example, was a poor man who ranked in the bottom third of the town’s taxpayers. He exacerbated his circumstances by sitting in the tavern “from one midnight to the next” and ultimately plunged his wife and children into hunger and destitution.21 Christa Rapp of Wolfertschwenden was another self-confessed drunkard and waster of his own property, flaws for which he attempted to compensate by repeatedly enlisting as a soldier and then deserting as soon as he received his first wages.22 The monastery did attempt to intervene in cases like these, and regularly extracted promises from husbands that they would henceforth stay out of taverns or “keep better company.”23 The efficacy of these efforts was undercut, however, by the continued subordination of women to their husbands. Releasing a neglectful husband or father from prison only on condition that he agree to reform may have alleviated the public scandal, but as long as his wife could not assume control of the household, the threat to the family’s well-being remained. The economic vulnerability of women was compounded by their exposure to male violence. This is an unpleasant subject, but the physical abuse of women by men was so persistent a feature of rural life that it cannot be ignored. This does not mean that all or even most women were subjected to violence. We must be sensitive to the nature of the surviving evidence on the character of the early modern family, which for Ottobeuren consists almost exclusively of court records. The Abbot did not issue congratulatory charters to couples who lived together in harmony for thirty years.24 He did, on the other hand, prosecute husbands who beat their wives, in consequence of which we are much 20

21 22 23 24

Thus, for example, in Hawangen Johann Sauter’s Hof passed in 1543 to his widow, Elisabeth Weissenhorn, and upon her death in 1554 to their son Johann Sauter junior (who must then have been quite young as he lived until 1601). In Dietratried Anthoni Lang’s Hof was entrusted at his death in 1552 to a daughter, Catharina, who retained it only until a son, Stoffel, was able to take over the property in 1556. Similarly, the widow of Ulrich Hegel of Attenhausen was admitted to her deceased husband’s Hof in 1534, but shortly thereafter the Hof passed to her son Alexander. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, ff. 14r [3 Sep. 1543], 15v [6 Aug. 1554], 33v [9 Mar. 1601], 65r [6 Mar. 1552], 65v [20 Feb. 1556], 125r [undated 1534 and 2 Aug. 1538]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 44r–46v, KL Ottobeuren 4, ff. 529r–v [13 Mar. 1550]. Ibid., Document 298F, ff. 767v–768v [22 Feb. 1557]. Ibid., Document 308O, ff. 1085r–1086v [8 June 1564]. The nearest equivalent that I have been able to find is the burial record of one Georg Depperich, a weaver of Hawangen, who was buried on 10 July 1704. Depperich is described as “tentor Hawangensi, vivens cum una uxore Anna Hiemerin in matrimonio pacifice et exemplariter 45 anni, aetatis suae 64 annorû circiter.” Hawangen Parth register [hereinafter HawPR], Vol. II, f. 31.

56


better informed about the unhappier than the happier side of domestic life at Ottobeuren. Moreover, it is highly significant that all of the surviving evidence on domestic violence comes from the records of its punishment in the courts. At least as far as the monastic authorities were concerned, the physical abuse of a wife was not merely disapproved of but stigmatized as a crime. Of course, the domestic ideal envisioned by the Abbot would not satisfy contemporary notions of marital equality. Wives were expected to defer to and obey their husbands, and the courts would also prosecute women for such offenses to femininity as “riding around the fields like men” (i.e. astride the horse instead of side-saddle).25 Nevertheless, even on an unsympathetic interpretation, it cannot be denied that the monastery upheld the principle that although a wife was subordinate to her husband, she was to be treated with honor and respect. Indeed, so concerned was the Abbot for domestic harmony among the peasantry that he often took up the role of marriage counselor to his own subjects. In 1535, for example, the Abbot called in a certain Christoff Aberöll of Stephansried, who had mistreated his wife and driven her out of the house. After determining that the man had no real grounds for complaint against his wife “other than that she is from her mouth somewhat sharp with words,” the Abbot patiently advised him to let his wife come home and henceforth to live with her honorably and to treat her properly as befit a pious husband. This, the Abbot added, would doubtless please God the Almighty and make Aberöll and his wife praiseworthy and honorable in the world. If in the future Aberöll had legitimate reasons for not living with his wife, the Abbot continued, he should take up the matter with the episcopal consistory in Augsburg. Aberöll’s own tongue turned out to be as sharp as his wife’s, and he retorted that even if he had no formal complaints against her, “if my wife comes into our house through the front door I shall leave her and our children by the back door and stay no longer with them together.” The Abbot was not amused and clapped Aberöll into the dungeon until he changed his tune.26 Despite the monastery’s good intentions, however, there was in practice little that it could do to control the domestic behavior of errant men. Ten years after his exchange with the Abbot, Christoff Aberöll was back in court, this time because I did some time ago take into service a dissolute woman, who also has a still-living husband and . . . with her I committed the sin of unchastity and impregnated her . . . and through my harsh conduct, unseemly strokes and blows, [I] caused my good wife to leave me, our children and her marital home and flee into lamentable destitution.27 25 26 27

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 14 (1586/7), Egg. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 293B, ff. 555v–561v [27 July 1535]. Ibid., Document 293C, ff. 561v–569v [20 Apr. 1545].


57

There followed the usual stint in prison, another vow to reform, and a promise by his relatives to pay a staggering fine of 200 gulden if Christoff ever broke his oath . . . and within four years Christoff was again in trouble for (among other infractions) not having put away a certain Margaretha Schwärzler.28 Christoff was not alone in his behavior. The Ottobeuren court records are littered with cases in which wives were chased out of the house, beaten, threatened with death, and even attacked with weapons by their husbands. At times it is clear that heavy drinking lay behind this violence; at times it seems that we have simply encountered a monster. To judge by the following confession from 1569, Marx Fünckh of Attenhausen fell into the latter category: [I confess that] I did for a long time treat my spouse and housewife most abusively and dishonorably and did drag her around and beat her to such an excessive and unseemly degree that the neighbors and even my own friends and relatives bewailed [the situation] and were repeatedly [and] properly moved to take pity on and endure with her, and also I did not only at the time when she was with child stamp on her most monstrously with my feet and pitilessly cover her with many blows, but even [when she was] in childbed and after [the delivery did] treat her so injuriously in violation of [both] divine and natural law that both she and the child repeatedly feared for and were in great danger to their lives and limbs.29 Difficult though it may be to make sense of individual cases, there were two general features of rural life which undoubtedly contributed to the abuse of women. The first, quite simply, was the almost universal conviction among men that women were an essentially different and inferior sort of being. This justified a woman’s subjection to her husband’s authority and thereby to his chastisement. When men were prosecuted for domestic violence, it is often clear that the offense was that the husband “did beat his wife excessively” or “did often [and] in a senseless manner beat his wife most cruelly,” rather than that he beat her at all. Even the rare case of a husband who refused to beat his wife at all turns out to be less encouraging than it first appears. In September of 1541, a wood turner by the name of Thomas Gross was arraigned for slandering the wife of one Veit Motz of Ottobeuren. Gross had told Motz that his wife had “a wicked, lying snout” and demanded that Motz punish her “so that she stop telling lies” about him. Motz’s reply, according to the witness Gertrauta Lachenmaier, was that “he had nothing for which to punish her, for she was older than he. He had a pious, honorable wife from whom he had honorable children.” Noble as this declaration may seem, the more detailed account of a second witness casts Motz’s refusal in a different and decidedly less edifying light: 28 29

Ibid., Document 293D, ff. 569v–576r [26 Oct. 1549]. Ibid., Document 303M, ff. 869v–872r [12 Nov. 1569].

58


Simon Dietz, burgher of Ottobeuren, testifies . . . that the turner went to Veit Motz and told him he had something to discuss with him. “Talk to your wife so that she leaves me . . . unslandered, and punish her as well. If you do not punish her so that she leaves me unslandered, I will punish her myself.” To this Veit Motz said that he, the turner, should punish her. The turner [then] said to Veit, “What did you promise and vow [at your wedding]? Can you not chastise your [own] wife?” Whereupon Veit went home and brought his wife before his, the witness’s, door. There the turner said to Veit Motz’s wife, “Catherine, why do you harm me by slandering me thus? You have a wicked snout, and should leave me alone!” At this the witness [intervened and] sent her [back] home, for he feared that further discord would ensue.30 Veit Motz may have been unwilling to punish his wife himself, but he not only lacked the courage to shield her from the abuse of others, he was weak-willed enough to expose her to it directly. The second general constituent of violence against women was a habit of predatory male sexuality. Here again, the construction of gender differences as qualitative otherness of being allowed for the view of men as subjects and women as objects. Thus, where a woman would feel constrained to go to court to defend her name from even the suspicion of unchaste behavior, only a man would boast openly of the extent and identities of his conquests.31 It has already been seen in the case of Christoff Aberöll how a husband’s abuse of his wife accompanied his acquisition of another sexual partner. This pattern is evident in several of the court cases, and added the tribulation of public humiliation and ridicule to the wife’s physical mistreatment.32 On occasion the adultery does seem to have been entered into by mutual agreement,33 but the frequency with which the man’s second partner turns out to be a subordinate, typically a servant or even a stepdaughter, underscores the more commonly exploitative nature of these liaisons. It is in fact perfectly clear that a great many of these male sexual adventures were crimes of violence. Thus Jerg Schmidt and Caspar Maier of Unterwolfertschwenden confessed in 1530 that they in neglect of our respectable [sic] and married status . . . did criminally, willfully, and with utter violence attempt to commit the works of impurity with [one] Margareta. When, however, she would not comply, and we were 30 31 32

33

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 900, ff. 3v–6r [15 Sep. 1541], on f. 4r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 294G, ff. 699r–703r [18 Aug. 1555]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 293E, ff. 602v–605v [17 Nov. 1569]; Documents 305A, ff. 975r–977r and 305C, ff. 979r–980v [both 18 Oct. 1527]. The last document explicitly refers to the fact that an adulterer’s wife and children “were as a result gravely insulted and mistreated, and deprived of honor and respect.” Ibid., Document 293E, ff. 782v–785r [24 July 1545].


59

unable to realize our willfullness and desire to do these secret things, with shoves, blows and kicks we did grievously beat her almost to death . . .34 Or Hanns Helzlin of Böhen, who in 1555 admitted that he “repeatedly with unchaste demeanor did desire of my stepdaughter, that she should surrender her will to me for the purpose of unchastity, and I did a few days ago force myself upon her and would not yield in my desire. Through the help of the Almighty, however, she [was able] to escape from me unstained.”35 Or Michael Kempter of Ottobeuren, who was prosecuted in 1582 because he “knocked down a maid who was in service in [the village of] Benningen, attempted to force her, and tore her belt and keys from her body. Master Thomas Dochtermann [then] came to save her. Kempter chased him around the field with a drawn blade; the maid in the mean time did [manage to] escape.”36 Violence of this sort could crop up even in the context of a marriage proposal. Gallus Schmidt of Niederrieden was determined to marry Ursula Knab, the widow of Hans Dreier. Not satisfied with threatening the lives and property of her other suitors, Schmidt actually broke into the widow’s house one night in 1541 “and addressed her with criminal, unseemly words [and] threats.”37 It will not do to dismiss this violence against and sexual exploitation of women as the aberrant acts of a few deviants. In the first place, the court records demonstrate that several of those prosecuted were repeat offenders, such as Martin Bröll of Niederrieden, who in 1547 and again in 1548 was found to be maintaining a concubine in his home “in addition to his wife.” Still more compulsive was the Bauer’s son Paul Heffelin of Sontheim, who after impregnating his own maid in 1569 went on to commit adultery with at least two other maids in 1577 and 1578. Second, there is evidence that women were at times victimized by entire groups of men. Thus in 1577 the Amman of Hawangen and four other men in the village were fined for sleeping with the wife of the drifter Jacob Fröschlin. Still more shocking was the prosecution in that same year of nine men in the village of Sontheim, who had all been having sexual relations with the maid of the local miller. The offenders included the wealthy miller himself, two of his sons (by one of whom the unfortunate woman was now pregnant), the poor baker Johann Wagner, the aforementioned Paul Heffelin, and the widowed Bauer Johann Aberöll, who “slept with her but was unable to do anything.”38 Cases like this may seem to approach a kind of rural prostitution, but the context was worlds apart from the urban brothel, where prostitutes enjoyed 34 35 36 37 38

Ibid., Document 297C, ff. 744r–749r [30 Dec. 1530]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 299F, ff. 785r–788r [28 Jan. 1555]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 12 (1582/3), Ottobeuren Markt und Pfarr. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 308P, ff. 1086v–1091v [24 Mar. 1541]. Ibid., Document 308R, ff. 1095r–1100v [25 Feb. 1547] and Document 308V, ff. 1107r–1111r [28 Feb. 1548]; KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 5 (1569/70), Sontheim; Heft 8 (1577/8), Sontheim and Hawangen; Heft 9 (1578/9), Sontheim.

60


a measure of institutional protection and qualified public acceptance.39 The debauched rural maid was a ruined woman. She could not remain in the village and ply her trade. If the monastery was willing to force her seducers to pay her some child support, it nevertheless refused to tolerate her presence in its territories. Thus in 1593 we find Johann Hering of Hawangen being fined £26 5 ß for committing adultery with and impregnating the maid of the miller of Eggenthal, and Michael Rauch of Benningen fined £1 for sheltering her.40 That women were so often victimized is of course not to say that they all suffered passively. Some battered wives simply packed up and went back to their families; others appealed to the episcopal consistory in Augsburg for separation from their husbands. The occasional woman also returned force with force; when Jacob Schuster of Westerheim hit the local tavernkeeper’s wife in the face, “she defended herself, seized him by the beard [and] well and bravely struck him down.”41 Even women who (as far as we can tell) were not abused by their spouses sometimes found rather unusual solutions to dissatisfaction with their marriages. In 1545 the village of Böhen saw the prosecution of an adulterous liaison between Agnesa Rot and one of her husband’s relatives. It turned out that Agnesa had not only been carrying on the relationship for nine years, she had “deceitfully and with ill-tempered, burdensome words convinced [her] husband to allow the said person to come to [her] openly [both] day and night, just as [she] in the same way came and went to the said person’s house by [both] day and night.” The monastery jailed Agnesa for her adultery and her husband for his inability to control his wife.42 Finally, and most ominously, the peasant women seem to have known of a recipe for what can only be termed a black widow potion: an aphrodisiac used to draw the affections of a man but then subsequently kill him off. The modern mind is inclined to scoff at the existence, not to mention the efficacy, of these concoctions, but the prosecution of an actual death in the village of Egg in November of 1548 leaves open the possibility that some women found unobtrusive but none the less permanent solutions to disabilities attendant upon their subordinate status.43 39 40 41

42

43

Lyndal Roper, The Holy Household: Women and Morals in Reformation Augsburg (Oxford, 1989), pp. 89–102. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 17 (1593/4), Benningen and Hawangen. Note also that a women paid only half of a man’s fine for the same offense. Karl Bosl, ed. Dokumente zur Geschichte von Staat und Gesellschaft in Bayern. Abteilung II: Franken und Schwaben vom Frühmittelalter bis 1800, Vol. IV: Schwaben von 1268 bis 1803, edited by Peter Blickle and Renate Blickle (Munich, 1979), Document 94. 1540 IX 11. Strafordnung von Abt Leonhard von Ottobeuren, p. 357. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 28 (1615), f. 33r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 299E, ff. 782v–785r [24 July 1545], similarly ibid., Document 293C, ff. 596v–599v [7 Sep. 1549], for the prosecution of Anna Klein of Guggenberg, who committed adultery with Caspar Vögelin, “for which [offense] my husband then left me unpunished.” Ibid., Documents 291EE and 309H, ff. 525r–526v and 1150r–1154r [5 Nov. 1548].


61

The fault line separating men from women was taken so much for granted by so many people that it has rarely occasioned comment in the documentary record. Differences between different kinds of men, by contrast, were more obvious to contemporaries. Oddly enough, one of the most helpful introductions to the social tectonics of this sort is the concept of judicial impartiality. Each Ottobeuren village had its own court presided over by judges elected by the villagers and the Amman, or mayor, who cast the deciding vote in the event the judges could not reach a majority decision (capital cases were decided at a special court in the market town of Ottobeuren). Upon election each Amman and judge swore an oath to uphold (among other things) a standard of impartiality constructed around the principle that the law should be blind to social distinctions which suffused peasant life. The wording of this oath provides a convenient summary of the categories in terms of which the boundaries of alterity were drawn: You the Amman and you the judges, each and every one [of you] shall swear and promise to God and the saints . . . to consider the motions brought forward by [both of] the parties and anyone else with equal attentiveness; and in all legal matters brought before you regarding which you are asked to rule, to give to the best of your understanding the same justice to the poor as to the rich, to the rich as to the poor, to the visitor as to the native, to the native as to the visitor . . . and every one of you [shall swear] never to take account of the pangs of love, friendship, enmity, kinship, wardship, favor, fear, gifts of money or monetary equivalents . . .44 The previous chapter has shown how the wealth attendant upon Hof tenancy split the Ottobeuren peasantry into two distinct and often antagonistic subsets. We have also just seen the depth of the divide between kin and non-kin, and between men and women. We now turn to the remaining two main kinds of social boundaries to which sixteenth-century law accorded particular recognition: those separating friend from enemy, and native from foreigner. When the Ottobeuren judge’s oath referred to enmity (Feindschaft), it meant a state of antagonism much sharper than mere dislike or resentment, and connoted a positive desire to do harm to an adversary. And the Abbot’s subjects did in fact do rather a lot of harm to each other. The tools lay ready to hand. Like most minor German potentates, the Abbot of Ottobeuren had no means of defending his dominions other than a mobilization of his subjects into a general militia, and external security was no minor concern. The monastery lands suffered occupation by the Bishop of Augsburg in 1460, by the Schmalkaldic League in 1552, the marauding of deserters and demobilized soldiers from the Turkish wars in the 1590s, and then a second occupation by the Bishop of 44

Ibid., Document 289 X, f. 365r: “Bauding Buch Anno 1551 – Oath of an Amman and a Judge.”

62


Augsburg in 1612.45 Despite his fears of peasant rebellion, then, the Abbot felt compelled by other security concerns not only to permit but even to require that every householder provide himself with a weapon, and if possible with a suit of armor.46 The peasants needed little encouragement. By the early seventeenth century the Ottobeuren militia numbered 743 musketeers, 364 cavalry, and 346 armored soldiers – over fourteen hundred armed men in all.47 This arsenal did not just collect dust in the attic. But although the militia was occasionally mobilized in response to an external threat, the peasants made much more frequent use of the weapons against each other. Violent episodes involving swords, axes, gaff hooks, and pig spears cover the pages of the monastery’s judicial records. Most of this violence was on a fairly small scale, involving no more than two or three miscreants. At times, however, these incidents escalated far beyond mere brawls, as in a 1530 incident from the village of Egg. Armed groups including ex-rebels from the Peasants’ War clashed in a virtual battle, in the course of which the local blacksmith was shot dead with an arquebus.48 It is not possible to estimate the rate of violent crime at Ottobeuren. The surviving documentation has several gaps, and even with a continuous set of records it is unlikely that the number of prosecutions accurately reflects the actual incidence of crime (murder would be a possible exception). But even without the benefit of the quantitative representation in which the modern mind takes so much comfort, the circumstances of violent crime at Ottobeuren alone belie the image of an Arcadian rural society. The sheer brutality of so many of the offenses is simply shocking. Heinrich Knopf and Kreitz Wölflin emerged from a scuffle each with “a hole smashed in the head.”49 The wife of Christian Sitt gashed a hole in another woman’s face with a spindle.50 Michael Gerardt beat another man “blue-white.”51 Gori Hartman pulled a knife on Mathias Wurm who replied with an ax-blow to the face.52 Equally revealing is the fact that no one in the village was safe from the threat or reality of assault. Although most recorded violence at Ottobeuren was committed by and against adult men, both wandering beggars, servants, and women on the one hand, and mayors and sheriffs on the other also figure regularly as victims of physical abuse. That the weak should have been victimized is perhaps to be expected in almost any society. That the danger should also 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Baumann, Allgäu, Vol. II, pp. 389–91 and Vol. III, pp. 153–8, 428. Also StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289T, ff. 347r–350v: “Mandat wider die gartierenden Knechten” [16 Sep. 1597]. Ibid., Document 289X, f. 384r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 159a. These numbers from the 1621 muster roll. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 309C, ff. 1131r–1137r [4 Apr. 1530]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 10 (1579/80), Ottobeuren Markt und Pfarr. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 19 (1597/8), Benningen. Ibid., Sontheim und Schlegelsberg. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 7 (1575/6), Frechenrieden.


63

have extended to those in positions of power and authority is a more telling indication of the pervasiveness of violence among the Ottobeuren peasantry. Primary responsibility for the enforcement of the law at Ottobeuren rested on the shoulders of the Pittel, or sheriff. Provided with a house and an annual grain salary by the monastery, the Pittel was assigned the task of admonishing the villagers to abide by the monastery’s ordinances and to arrest those who refused to comply.53 Both of these duties could be hazardous. In 1505 the Pittel of Böhen instructed a certain Hans Lachenmaier to pipe off some dammed-up water and was subjected to an armed assault for his trouble.54 Making an actual arrest could provoke an even more dramatic response, as was seen above in the 1532 case of Simon Bürklin of Egg. And even if a Pittel did manage to secure someone behind bars, there was always the possibility that the prisoner would either break out himself, or be the object of a rescue attempt by friends and kinsmen.55 Some of this open contempt for the authority of the Pittel may have stemmed from the fact that the post was usually held by men drawn from the poorer segment of the village population. By contrast the office of Amman, as was seen in the previous chapter, was a prestigious position monopolized by the wealthiest householders in the village. The Amman sat on the village court and presided with the Vierer (“council of four”) over the meetings of the Gemeinde. He served as the principal intermediary between the monastery and the village community, and was in a sense the most important person in the village. Just as in the case of the Pittel, however, the office of Amman carried a series of definite risks. Naturally, every public official had to expect a certain amount of harassment, and we ought not to assign much significance to incidents where the Amman was publicly insulted56 or suffered a few knocks when breaking up a fist fight.57 Cold-blooded plots to murder the Amman were another matter altogether. In 1526 an unnamed fugitive from justice disclosed to Hans Schussman his intention to burn down the house of the Amman of Sontheim. Schussman not only provided the man with both food and shelter, but also calmly offered the following advice: “don’t do that; [the house] won’t burn down without causing [other] damage. He rides each day to the charcoal burners; you can easily shoot 53 54 55

56 57

StAA, KU Ottobeuren 563 [9 Feb. 1495] and 690 [23 May 1504]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 299A, ff. 772v–775v [19 May 1505]. Ibid., Document 293D, ff. 616v–619r (Urfehdebrief of Jos Hölzlin junior of Hohenheim [15 June 1532]). Hölzlin was imprisoned for an unspecified offense and then broke out of jail at night. See also ibid., Document 308W, ff. 1111r–1115v (Urfehdebrief of Hans Knab of Niederrieden 20 Jan. 1551). Knab wounded the Pittel in an attempt to free from custody a certain Merckh Miller, who had been condemned to death by breaking on the wheel. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 305B, ff. 977r–979r (Urfehdebrief of Simon Hess of Oberwesterheim [9 Sep. 1527]); KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 3 (1566/7), Schoren. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 5 (1569/70), Wolfertschwenden

64


him dead there.” This particular Amman seems to have been widely unpopular, for when the plot was foiled and Schussman was arrested, the entire village community appealed (successfully) to the Abbot for clemency!58 But even if Schussman was an unusual case, he was not the only hothead in the village. Thirteen years later another Sontheim Amman was ambushed and almost killed by a villager armed with a pig spear.59 But enough of this tableau of crimes and misfortunes, at least for the moment. How is the endemic violence at Ottobeuren to be explained? We ought perhaps to begin with the more basic question of whether formal interpretation is really necessary. After all, in the majority of cases the violence can be accounted for by reference to explosive tempers and the inherent volatility of a population under arms. But simple irascibility is an inadequate explanation for the widespread scorn for the offices of the law and a fortiori for the aforementioned attempts on the life of the Amman. These latter incidents were premeditated acts of vengeance, and this brings us to the institution of the feud. The feud was a time-honored tradition in Upper Swabia, and although it had fallen from favor among the territorial lords by the middle of the sixteenth century, the same cannot be said of their subjects. This is not to suggest that the medieval tradition of nailing a formal declaration of enmity (Feindbrief) to the door of the parish church was the usual prelude to an outbreak of violence.60 Be that as it may, it remains true that the essential characteristic of the feud – the resolution of conflicts by private justice instead of through the courts – was a constant theme at Ottobeuren, and was seen as a more serious threat to the social order than simple violence itself. In 1548, for example, Simon Kopp of Attenhausen was arrested on two separate charges. He had on behalf of a third party affixed a Feindbrief to the door of the village blacksmith, and had stabbed a certain Peter Stehelin with a pig spear. For the first offense, which was considered a “violation of the Imperial Peace, the Golden Bull [of 1356] and the public common law,” he was fined £15 15 ß, but for the second offense he was fined only £10.61 Does it matter that peasant violence so often took the form of a feud? I submit that it does. Distinctive of the feud is a formalized separation of people into the 58 59 60

61

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 304L, ff. 906r–909r (Urfehdebrief of Hans Schussman of Sontheim [14 June 1526]). Ibid., Document 304S, ff. 928v–934r [18 Feb. 1539]. E.g. ibid., Document 309B, ff. 1127v–1131r (Urfehdebrief of Hans Rot genannt Bayer of Nidergaltingen in Bavaria [30 Oct. 1486]). Rot confessed that he “under cover of night and fog did deliver threatening letters to Contz Schöffler of Egg regarding some pretended claim . . . [and also] affixed them to the door of the church . . .” Ibid., Document 303G, ff. 851v–855r [30 July 1548]. Also StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 2 (1548), Attenhausen and Ottobeuren Markt und Pfarr. Kopp had just been permitted to return to Ottobeuren after fleeing to escape prosecution for other crimes. See KU Ottobeuren 1296/2 9 Feb. 1547.


65

antithetical groupings of friends and enemies. This is the same compartmentalizing habit of mind which has been seen to characterize conceptions of both kinship and gender roles at Ottobeuren. It shares with these distinctions, and also with the Bauer/Seldner divide, a deeply ingrained tendency to segment the world into rival corporations of insiders and outsiders. Due to the laconic nature of the surviving records, it is often difficult to discern the motives (if any) behind peasant violence. There are, however, three indications that a thirst for private justice underlay much of that violence. Most obvious is the observation that so much of the evidence about criminality at Ottobeuren has come down to us in the form of Urfehdebriefe, the plea-bargain arrangement previously encountered in the aftermath of the Peasants’ War. The simple range of offenders at whose punishment an oath of non-retaliation was demanded – from petty thieves and wife beaters to witches and political rebels – illustrated the monks’ appreciation for the deep roots of the feud in peasant society. In this regard it is also worth noting that it had not been all that long since the monastery itself had engaged in feuds. In 1482 the Ritter von Hohenheim proclaimed a feud with the monastery and was then promptly waylaid and killed by a commando of peasants dispatched by the Abbot for just that purpose.62 A more direct piece of evidence for peasant feuding is the frequency with which the threat of vengeance was issued. The use of the Feindbrief continued through the sixteenth century, although there was no longer anything to match a spectacular incident in 1495 when a disgruntled serf of the Graf von Montfort proclaimed a feud with the Abbot, his servants, and the entire population of the monastery lands!63 Threats of vengeance did not need to be written to be credible, however. There are plenty of cases where the authorities were concerned enough to arrest a peasant simply because he had threatened to strangle a rival64 or burn down the house of a neighbor,65 and some peasants were even bold enough to issue death threats to the Vogt himself for having imprisoned them.66 Crucially, it is clear that private vengeance was often seen as an alternative to the justice offered by the courts. Thus, when Michael Burger of Benningen lost a legal ruling against his brother-in-law and another friend, he declined to appeal the ruling. Instead, Burger threatened his opponents in a “violent and murderous manner” and publicly announced his intention to revenge himself by burning down a number of houses in the village of Benningen.67 A final indication of the connection between peasant violence and the feud is a brief phrase which crops up again and again in the Urfehdebriefe of those 62 64 65 66 67

63 Ibid., pp. 745–7. Feyerabend, Ottenbeuren Jahrbücher, Vol. II, pp. 716–17. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 303L, ff. 866r–869v [28 July 1569]. Ibid., Document 306D, ff. 1010v–1013v [20 Nov. 1554]. Ibid., Document 291DD, ff. 523r–525r [4 Sep. 1545] and Document 305E, ff. 984r–990r [2 Aug. 1548]. Ibid., Document 295B, ff. 708r–711v [23 Sep. 1556].

66


prosecuted for violence: the offense had been committed u¨ ber gemachten Frid or in violation of a pre-existing formalized accord. The monastery attempted to head off potential conflicts and defuse existing ones by mediating peace agreements between the feuding parties and their respective families. These Verträge (literally “contracts”) were particularly important where someone had been killed, and in murder cases the accord usually required the guilty party to pay compensation to the victim’s kinfolk in addition to the (heavy) fine levied by the monastery.68 As may be expected, it was not always easy to arrive at a settlement. When Erhardt Steidlin of Sontheim was killed in a fight in 1566, the Abbot worried that “all sorts of lamentable escalations, discord, unrest, hatred, and ultimately the ruin of His Grace’s subjects could arise and follow.” To forestall this possibility, the friends, heirs, and kin of both the deceased and his killers were called together to work out an accord. Initial hopes for a peaceful resolution were dashed, however, when Steidlin’s nephew Jerg Schückh leapt to his feet and did not only rebuke the perpetrators as thieves, scoundrels and murderers, but [did] also . . . most grievously attack and insult my gracious lord [and] also His Grace’s Vogt, servants and officials as beggar- and scoundrel-lords and did in addition unjustly . . . accuse them that with respect to the matter of the aforesaid murder they had made a dishonorable [and] worthless scoundrel’s accord.69 The hot-tempered nephew was hauled off and imprisoned (the Abbot was himself sensitive about his honor); we do not know if an accord was ever reached. Even when mediation was initially successful, however, there was always the possibility that the thirst for vengeance would later return. This can be illustrated with a few examples from the village of Niederrieden. In 1525 Enderas Schmidt and Michael Reder were arrested and convicted for the killing of Jörg Maier. The Ottobeuren Vogt and the monastery secretary mediated an accord between Maier’s family and the killers, but peace remained elusive. When Schmidt and Reder ran into the brother and relatives of the deceased outside the market town of Ottobeuren, a fracas ensued and the intervention of the Vogt was required.70 68

69 70

E.g. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 8 (1577/8). Jerg Eggler of Ungerhausen killed Martin Lorre of Ungerhausen in the village of Hawangen. Eggler paid 23 fl. to Lorre’s relatives and 64 fl. to the monastery. Other evidence of this custom of payments to the relatives of the deceased is contained in ibid., Heft 3 (1566/7) (a peasant from Wolfertschwenden and a man from Grönenbach agree to pay 55 fl. to the family of a murdered Grönenbach man) and Heft 15 (1590/1) (the Amman of Arlesried and a man from Mussenhausen agree to pay 129.4 fl. to the family of a murdered man from Günz). Note that when the Maier of Niederrieden’s son killed a vagabond in 1597, the son was fined 8 fl., but there is no record of any payment to the vagabond’s family. KL 587-II, Heft 19 (1597/8). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 304AA, ff. 956r–963v [7 Mar. 1566]. Ibid., Document 308B, ff. 1054r–1059r (Urfehdebrief of Enderas Schmidt of Niederrieden and Michael Reder of Heimertingen [13 Jan. 1525]).


67

Gallus Schmidt’s oath to uphold an accord with his neighbor Michael Maier and Maier’s relatives did not prevent him from attacking Maier’s son in the nearby village of Heimertingen in 1528.71 Equally ineffective was the accord between Jeronimus Kessler the younger and a certain Melchior Fesema; in 1535 young Kessler stabbed Fesema in the back.72 The original impulse to these feuds may often have been relatively minor: border disputes, unpaid debts, and so on. Nevertheless, the probability that an initial squabble would escalate into violence was greatly increased by a sensitive sense of honor shared by lord and peasant alike. Thus Michael Gerardt (the same one who beat another man “blue-white”) flew into a rage and had to be restrained from pulling a knife when a neighbor presumed to dance with Gerardt’s wife at a village gathering.73 In a similar vein we have in the previous chapter seen how Ulrich Blenck’s 1529 tirade against the Abbot and his servants as tyrants and villains also contained the revealing denunciation that they were “worthy of no honor.” The most explicit indications of the importance of personal honor in rural life are the provisions of the Penal Ordinance of Abbot Leonhard Widenmann issued in 1540. The ordinance has two striking features. One is the precision in the grading of offenses to honor. Simple insults “which however do not touch or damage his [the aggrieved party’s] honor or reputation” were punishable by a fine of 5 shillings. Calling someone a liar resulted in a fine of 10 shillings, whereas to do so in a defamatory manner such as “you lie like a scoundrel” increased the fine to 60 shillings. Most severely punished were those “who defame, abuse and denounce another as a thief, rogue, murderer, scoundrel, traitor, arsonist or similar defamatory words which affect and diminish honor, reputation and standing.” This last offense was punishable by the staggering fine of 200 shillings.74 The second significant feature of the 1540 ordinance is that it formally codifies the position that affronts to honor should be considered more serious offenses than simple physical violence. Thus simple brawling (fine of 10 shillings), drawing blood (30 shillings) and even breaking another’s limbs or crippling him (100 shillings) were all punished much less severely than a serious attack on someone’s personal honor.75 71

72 73 74 75

Ibid., Document 308G, ff. 1067v–1069v (Urfehdebrief of Gallus Schmidt of Niederrieden [4 Nov. 1528]). Schmidt was forbidden to bear weapons as part of this Urfehde agreement, but was arrested for doing so just two years later. Ibid., Document 308J, ff. 1072r–1076r (Urfehdebrief of Gallus Schmidt of Niederrieden [12 Feb. 1530]). Ibid., Document 308K, ff. 1076r–1078r (Urfehdebrief of Jeronimus Kessler junior alias Schmidt of Niederrieden [1 Feb. 1535]). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 10 (1579/80), Sontheim und Schlegelsberg. Bosl, ed. Dokumente, Vol. IV, Document 94. 1540 IX 11. Strafordnung von Abt Leonhard von Ottobeuren, p. 354. Ibid., pp. 354–6.

68


The premium the peasant placed on personal honor should not be caricatured as simple touchiness. If we are to understand the centrality of boundary at sixteenth-century Ottobeuren, we must first appreciate that the social radius of rural life was extremely intimate. This is not to say that no one ever traveled or left the home village, but rather that face-to-face relations in the local community had an overriding importance. The centrality of honor is a reflection of this fact. Since word of mouth was the prime source of information among the peasantry, everything from commercial and employment opportunities to a person’s chances on the marriage market was strongly influenced by reputation. A man with a name for not paying his debts, a servant suspected of pilfering, a woman rumored to be unchaste, all of these stood to lose a great deal in the intimate world of the village. For just this reason, false accusations of this kind were treated as criminal offenses and the accusers were punished accordingly.76 If wealth, kinship, gender, and enmity all fragmented the peasant’s world into sets of insiders and outsiders, a similar effect was produced by residence. When the judge’s oath distinguished between natives and foreigners, the latter term was understood to include all of those who did not live in the monastery lands. It was thus entirely possible for someone to live within sight of a nearby village where he would none the less be considered a foreigner. In practice, the people mentioned as “foreigners” in the monastery records fell into two general categories. The first were simply people who lived elsewhere who happened to be traveling through the monastery lands. The second were people without fixed residences, a drifting assortment of pedlars, beggars, vagrants, and runaways. The attitude of the Ottobeuren peasantry to these various sorts of outsiders is best described as ambivalent. On the one hand, as the Abbot himself noted in 1549, “there are few small and humble villages like the ones in this region where one may when necessary more readily receive shelter and hospitality than here.”77 This hospitality was a rather durable tradition. In 1551 alarm over the growing numbers of transients on the roads prompted an official prohibition on giving shelter to “wandering laborers, vagrants and beggars” outside of public inns.78 The proclamation was widely ignored. The criminal court papers 76

77 78

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 14 (1586/7), Frechenrieden: “Heÿß Wurm Blacksmith accosted Hanns Heffelin with hot words regarding a debt that had been paid long ago – [fined] 5 shillings”; Hawangen: “Hans Schmidt accused his maid of having stolen four batzen from his mother; this was found to be untrue – [fined] 1 pound”; StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 17 (1593/4), Westerheim: “Conrad Gufer accused a woman from Kamlach that he had previously had dishonorable doings with her; he later retracted this and settled with her – [fined] 3 pounds 14 shillings 8 heller.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289X, f. 392r: “Ordinance and Commandment regarding Innkeepers, Butchers and Bakers proclaimed Anno 1549.” Ibid., Document 289X, f. 398r–v: “Swabian Circle Decision and thence derived Mandate concerning Wanderers, Demobilized Soldiers, Beggars and Gypsies” [31 May 1551].


69

regularly record the fines of villagers who in violation of the law had sheltered beggars, demobilized soldiers, and vagrants. In some cases the kindness extended to strangers is rather moving. Hans Kramer of Betzisried took in a sick beggar woman in the winter of 1575, and despite the danger to his family – some of whom contracted her illness – kept her in his house until the following spring.79 At the same time, strangers and especially vagrants were often regarded with profound suspicion. Nobody knew or could know what sort of person a wanderer was. Strangers were by definition preceded by no reputation. They belonged nowhere; they had no community. And thus it happened that in the very 1549 ordinance where the Abbot recounted the Swabian tradition of hospitality, he also noted that It has with the greatest of complaints and lamentations been daily brought to our attention by many [both] rich and poor, noble and other foreign nonresident persons . . . who due to the onset of the night or to other needs or reasons sought and required shelter [here] that they were not only not admitted by those who maintain public inns . . . and other establishments but were also with unseemly and offensive replies refused and driven from one [establishment] to another.80 To suggest that foreigners at Ottobeuren were regularly met with both hospitality and abuse may seem paradoxical, but both attitudes were clearly in evidence. How else to explain the following 1579 entry from the criminal court papers: “Caspar Heuss of Westerheim sheltered a vagrant in violation of the prohibition; Heuss and his brother’s wife did [also] beat the vagrant with their fists – fined 1 £ 5 ß”?81 Of course, if exposure to blows and insults was the only consequence of the suspicion with which foreigners were beheld, they were being treated in more or less the same way the peasants behaved towards each other. Regrettably, the dangers of being a foreigner were much more serious than the foregoing would suggest, and are most glaringly obvious in the fate of those unfortunates who fell foul of the law. This can be seen in the following tale of two thieves. In 1573 an Ottobeuren serf by the name of Lorenz Frewlin was arrested in Benningen for a string of robberies. He had been stealing grain, meat, and other goods as well as having raided his neighbors’ beehives and haystacks by night. After appeals by his brother and brothers-in-law for mercy, Frewlin received a pardon. He was released from prison but ordered to leave the monastery lands. His wife, who had helped him in his thievery, was also exiled.82 The sentence seems rather harsh, unless one considers how much worse it could have been. Three years 79 80 81 82

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 7 (1575/6), Ottobeuren Markt und Pfarr. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289X, ff. 391r–v. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 10 (1579/80), Westerheim. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 295F, ff. 720v–724v [17 Feb. 1573].

70


earlier two foreigners had fallen under suspicion of stealing fish and chickens in the village of Günz. Both men, Leonhardt Amman of Hiltenfingen and Thoma Cramer of Eberhausen, were arrested and interrogated, and when their answers proved inconsistent they were subjected to torture. This last procedure rapidly produced confessions, whereupon both men were sentenced to death. Amman was to be broken on the wheel and then hung up on a gibbet. Cramer was to be burned alive. As in the case of Lorenz Frewlin, there were appeals for mercy, this time from the parish priests of the monastery lands. The court relented. The men had their sentences commuted to decapitation, although Amman’s corpse was still to be strung from the gibbet and Cramer’s remains were still to be burned.83 In all fairness, it must be conceded that these two cases are drawn from different classes of documents. The pardon of Lorenz Frewlin and his wife is taken from a series of Urfehdebriefe, which by definition detail a commuted sentence. The execution of the two foreigners, by contrast, is related in the proceedings of the Peinliche Halsgericht, or court for capital crimes, whose final decision was almost invariably a death sentence. Still, this difference of provenance does not do away with the suggestion of judicial bias against foreigners. It turns out that in the documents preserved in the Rotulus Probationum, foreigners made up only 5.1 percent of the defendants in cases resolved by Urfehdebriefe, but fully 52.9 percent of the defendants in the cases decided by the Peinliche Halsgericht.84 Again, it could be objected that foreigners were more likely to commit those crimes such as theft which most often resulted in a death sentence. And it is true that in most of the theft cases decided by the Peinliche Halsgericht (seven of nine cases, or 77.8 percent), the defendant was a foreigner. Nevertheless, in so far as the sixteenth-century Urfehdebriefe record repeated pardons for native thieves85 and none at all for their foreign counterparts, there remain good reasons to believe that a foreigner arrested at Ottobeuren was likely to be judged more harshly than a local offender. In a sense this is hardly surprising. The clemency embodied in an Urfehde agreement was granted not simply because it was requested, but more importantly because the future good behavior of the defendant could be guaranteed 83 84

85

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 292A, ff. 1048r–1049v [20 June 1570]. Foreigners appeared in 13 of 256 Urfehdebrief cases but 9 of 17 Peinliche Halsgericht cases. Another intimation of judicial prejudice is provided by the “Tower-Register” kept by Adam von Stein, the Ottobeuren Obervogt for the years 1582–1601. This document, which has survived only as an incomplete copy in ibid., Document 311, ff. 1173r–1178r, records the names, offenses, and punishments of those arrested for various reasons by the Obervogt. Foreigners account for six of seven (85.7 percent) death sentences; of those arrested one of eight (12.5 percent) natives but six of nineteen (31.6 percent) foreigners were executed. E.g. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Documents 291BB, ff. 517v–521r (Urfehdebrief of Hanns Hiebeler genant König of Ottobeuren [6 Aug. 1545]) 294A, ff. 677r–679r (Urfehdebrief of Kilian Linckh of Hawangen [15 May 1529]; and 305F, ff. 990r–996r (Urfehdebrief of Jacob Schiess of Oberwesterheim [11 Dec. 1554]).


71

by those close to him. In the case of Lorenz Frewlin, his relatives bound themselves either personally to hunt him down and bring him to jail within a month or to pay the Abbot a fine of 15 fl. (=£26 5 ß) if he ever broke his Urfehde oath. Without guarantors like these, the convicted foreigner at Ottobeuren was in a very bleak position. The Amman and townspeople who staffed the Peinliche Halsgericht had nothing but the word of an unknown convicted felon to move them to clemency. If a traveler could secure intervention from his overlord or from the public authorities in his home town, he might well be spared,86 but this remedy was clearly unavailable to the genuinely transient. For the vagrants and beggars, the masterless men and women of the highways, the rootlessness which normally drew suspicion at the least all too often sealed their fate when they were brought before the vengeful rural tribunal. In light of the foregoing, it is hardly surprising that the offices of the law should have been so concerned to keep justice blind to the internal divisions of rural society. It is also significant that, at least with respect to the treatment of foreigners, the effort was almost certainly a failure. But the rural world was also divided along other residential fault lines to which the judge’s oath makes no reference: settlement form. According to a serf roll drawn up in 1564, only 63.8 percent (4,999) of the Abbot’s eight thousand-odd subjects lived in the nucleated villages commonly regarded as definitive of the world of the peasantry. Fully 27.2 percent (2,129) lived in Weiler, or scattered hamlets which were systematically differentiated from the villages in the monastery’s records. The remaining 8.9 percent (699) lived in the central market town, or Markt, of Ottobeuren.87 Did these distinctions matter? They did. We have already seen how the Weiler grew out of a very different settlement process from the one which produced the villages, as a result of which the hamlets displayed strikingly different patterns of land tenure from their more densely populated counterparts. Hamlet and village were also marked by equally prominent differences of political organization. Each village maintained an impressive collection of local officialdom including an Amman (mayor), two Hauptleute (‘headmen’), four Vierer ( the ‘council of four’), the Pittel (Sheriff), and the judges who together with the Amman staffed the Dorfgericht, or village court.88 In addition, the 86

87 88

For a late example see ibid., Document 304CC, ff. 969r–972r (Urfehdebrief of Georg Sylvanus of Bamberg [9 May 1611]). A self-proclaimed traveling soldier (“although I could show no evidence or Passbort of my service”), Sylvanus stole 4 gulden from an old man with whom he was sharing a room at the Sontheim inn. In consideration of his youth, promises of improvement, and especially a “commendation” from a Bamberg court official, Sylvanus was spared a flogging and stint in the pillory, and was instead banished from the Ottobeuren lands for the rest of his life. Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564,” pp. III–V. Blickle, Memmingen, p. 247.

72


villagers annually elected two Heiligenpfleger, or churchwardens, to oversee the financial administration of the parish church. The political organization of the hamlets was rudimentary by contrast. The monastery clustered the hamlets into groups of eight to twelve and then placed each Hauptmannschaft, as these agglomerations were called, under the administration of a Hauptmann, or headman. The Hauptmann aside, there do not seem to have been any other local officials in the hamlets; legal matters were referred to the Gerichte of either the village of Böhen or the market town of Ottobeuren. Now, this difference between the villages and the hamlets may in no small part be explained by the modest administrative requirements of a lower population density. The significance of the institutional contrast is not, however, thereby to be dismissed. We have already seen how often peasant protest grew out of or at least represented a subversion of officially sanctioned political patterns such as the meeting of the Gemeinde and the deliberations of the village court. It is also worth emphasizing that the inveterate tradition of dissent in the village of Sontheim and the long-running conflict between the Abbot and the village of Egg over wood rights had no counterpart in the small and scattered settlements in the south of the monastery lands. The suggestion is obvious: the relative political quiescence of the hamlets was at least in part a consequence of their institutional underdevelopment. In a third, and jealously guarded category of its own was the market town, or Markt of Ottobeuren. The Markt had a pre-eminent rank among the settlements of the Abbot’s dominions. The Markt’s court had jurisdiction over all capital cases in the monastery lands and by 1457 its Amman possessed the dignity of affixing his own seal to official documents.89 Above all, and as the name would suggest, the Markt had the special right to hold a weekly market every Thursday and two annual markets on St. Urban’s Day (25 May) and on St. Mauritius’ Day (22 September). This status, which was conferred by the Emperor Maximillian in 1498, was not just a privilege but an exclusive (and therefore lucrative) right to hold markets. All buying and selling in the monastery lands was required by law to take place in and be overseen by the officials of the Markt, which thus became the commercial hub of the Ottobeuren Klosterstaat. Now, we should be careful not to overdraw the difference between the Markt and the nucleated villages. The Markt Ottobeuren was really rather small. In 1564 it numbered a mere 699 inhabitants, making it not much larger than the villages of Sontheim (population 549) and Hawangen (population 618), and actually smaller than the village of Benningen (population 794).90 And while it is true that the occupational structure of the Markt was dominated by trade and craft work, it is clear that a great many of the town’s inhabitants were also at least 89 90

Ibid., pp. 62–3. Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564,” pp. III–V.


73

91

partially engaged in occupations such as crop raising and animal husbandry.92 In the eyes of someone from a true city like Memmingen, the Markt Ottobeuren must have seemed like nothing so much as a glorified peasant village with pretensions.93 But despite the partially agrarian character of the Markt Ottobeuren, the town dwellers (or at least the more prosperous among them) had a very strong sense of their distinctiveness from the inhabitants of the surrounding countryside. This distinctiveness found concrete expression in the institution of Bürgerrecht, or citizenship. By the beginning of our period, the inhabitants of the Markt were already divided into those who held Bürgerrecht and those who did not.94 Only the citizens were eligible for public office, and they alone had use rights to the common lands. It is not clear what proportion of the inhabitants of the Markt enjoyed the Bürgerrecht, although it is certain that the non-citizens were concentrated among the poorest segment of the town population.95 The value placed on these citizenship rights is most readily apparent in the rise of restrictive legislation governing Bürgerrecht in the later sixteenth century. Over the course of the sixteenth century, the growth of population in the Swabian countryside prompted many peasants to leave their crowded native villages and hamlets in search of a better life elsewhere. Like many territorial lords, the Abbot of Ottobeuren was greatly concerned by the stream of migrants into his dominions, and moved to restrict immigration “so that the monastery’s 91

92

93

94

95

A 1544 rent roll lists twenty-two persons in the Markt Ottobeuren renting arable and meadow parcels from the monastery. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, ff. 1v–4v, “Gültbuch 1544.” This represents between a sixth and a seventh of the households in the Markt at the time (the 1546 tax register lists 141 households [StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 44r–46v] and the 1548 serfbook lists 132 households [StAA, KL Ottobeuren 600, ff. 8r–30r]). In so far as the Gültbuch 1544 records only that small minority of properties in the Markt held under Gotteshausrecht, the overall proportion of town dwellers cultivating some kind of land must have been much higher. The small tithe registers of Ottobeuren parish show that at least sixty-five households in the Markt produced calves in 1564. This represents 38 percent of all households, a figure which is an underestimate in so far as not all those who kept cows raised calves every year. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 688-I, “Rechnungen der Pfarrei Ottobeuren,” Heft 2 (1564), ff. 1r–7r. Compare with Hefte 1, ff. 23v–28v (1563), 3, ff. 1r–6v (1565), and 4, ff. 25v–30v (1566). Household total from KL Ottobeuren 25 (Mü.B.), pp. 1–18. See for example the letter dated 7 August 1600 from the Bürgermeister and Rat of Memmingen to Kaiser Rudolph dismissing the Markt Ottobeuren because it “maintains no market or inspection ordinances regarding buying and selling or goods and victuals . . . and also does not have the people to institute the necessary ordinances and is not even located on the highway but in fact lies out of the way in solitudine.” StadtA MM A. Reichsstadt [bisher Stadtarchiv] 40/1. The antiquity of the Bürgerrecht at Ottobeuren is unclear. The title “burgher of Ottobeuren” is documented at least as far back as the early fifteenth century. Hoffmann, ed., Urkunden, no. 179 [26 Apr. 1409]. This does not conversely mean that all Bürger were rich. A certain Michael Blank was a Bürger of Ottobeuren in 1550 (StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 291HH, ff. 529r–v. (Urfehdebrief of Michael Blank of Ottobeuren [13 Mar. 1550]). According to the 1546 tax register (StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 44r–46v), only 20.6 percent of the taxpayers in the Markt had a lower tax assessment than he.

74


districts, market town, villages and hamlets do not become overpopulated with large numbers of foreign and alien persons, and [so that] those who were born and raised inside [the monastery lands] are not bought out, outnumbered and burdened by such foreigners.”96 The problem was particularly acute in the Markt Ottobeuren, where in the two generations after the Peasants’ War the number of households rose by some 70 percent.97 The influx of country dwellers provoked deep resentment among the more established inhabitants, who felt that their rights and privileges as citizens of the Markt were being diluted by the admission of too many undesirable outsiders to the community. The Abbot was sympathetic to these concerns and in the 1570s promulgated a series of decrees culminating in an elaborate Heiratsordnung, or marriage ordinance, issued in 1576. The 1576 ordinance was drawn up in consultation with the Amman and Vierer (council of four) of the Markt.98 Its stated goal was the prevention of two social evils: clandestine marriage, which will be discussed in chapter 5, and the burdensome excess of “foreigners” in the Markt Ottobeuren. With respect to the latter, the ordinance focuses on the regulation of marriages between Bürger of the Markt and “outsiders,” since simple unauthorized immigration by foreigners had itself already been repeatedly forbidden by the monastery.99 The basic fear of the citizenry was that poor outsiders might gain entrance into their community of privilege through marriage. Accordingly, the 1576 ordinance provided that if a woman married someone from outside the Markt and had neither a house of her own nor a credible expectation of acquiring one, she forfeited her Bürgerrecht and was obliged to move out of the Markt to live with her husband. If, on the other hand, a woman did own or expected to inherit a house, her foreign husband would be allowed to move into the Markt to live with her after providing, first, documentation of the value of his property and, second, a specification of whether it was in the form of cash or goods. Even then, however, the husband had to have property worth at least 40 gulden above the value of his clothing and personal effects, or he would not be allowed to live in the town. 96 97

98 99

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289K, f. 321r: “Mandat der underthanen, hindersäßen, und leibaignen leithen des Gottshauß heürat betreffendt 1571.” The tax register for 1525 does not have a complete listing for the market town of Ottobeuren, but suggests a total of 100 households. In 1546 there were 141 households in the Markt (StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 44r–46v) and in 1564 there were 171 (Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564,” pp. 3–10). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289N, ff. 327r–331r: “Heiratsordnung” [18 Aug. 1576]. Ibid., Documents 289G, ff. 308v–311r (“Gebott und Statut der auslendischen leibaignen, so sich in des gottshauß Ottenbeüren gerichten einzuedringen understehen”) [4 Sep. 1561] and 289H, ff. 311r–314v (same title as previous ordinance) [10 Dec. 1567]. See the prosecution of Hans Gonser of Babenhausen, a would-be emigrant to the Markt, who was fined £7 “because he moved into the lordship of his own accord [and] without [official] permission.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 11 (1580/81).


75

The ordinance does not have explicit provisions for the expulsion to their wives’ homes of poor male Bürger who married foreigners, but this does not seem to have reflected an intention to allow more freedom of choice to men in marriage (there were, of course, many other areas of the law such as property holding in which men were indeed allowed a great deal more independence than women). Rather, since the authorities who drew up the ordinance assumed that patrilocality was the normal social pattern,100 they probably did not consider the case of a man who moved to live with his wife common enough to be worthy of formal regulation. Whatever the case may be, the 1576 ordinance clearly states that whether or not male Bürger had their own houses, their prospective foreign spouses were to be subjected to the same 40 gulden property requirement if they wanted to move into the Markt with their husbands. It is instructive to note precisely how the 1576 ordinance defines outsiders. Here the text speaks best for itself: The aforesaid articles are to be understood to apply not only to foreigners born outside the monastery lands, but also to all subjects of the monastery who do not have Bürgerrecht here [in the Markt], but were born and raised in other districts of the monastery lands outside of the Markt, such that these other subjects of the monastery, whether they are men or women, if they do not have property worth 40 gulden, are ineligible for Bürgerrecht, and in this case it shall be dealt with them as with other foreigners.101 The good burghers of Ottobeuren thus exemplify the trait that Mack Walker saw as characteristic of German home town dwellers – the desire to protect their community against all outsiders, foreigners and peasants alike.102 Although the classification of individuals on the basis of their residence meant that the compartmentalization of persons came to entail the compartmentalization of space, the latter practice was not merely derivative of the former. The physical space of the monastery lands was as consciously segmented into bounded, autonomous subunits of differential privilege as were the people who inhabited it. It may seem unremarkable that Abbot Leonhard’s 1540 Penal Code doubled the fine for any offense if it were committed inside a church. It must 100

101 102

Thus for example in an earlier ordinance “. . . since according to the common law, a woman is to move to live with the man to whom she is bound in marriage . . .” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289K, ff. 317r–320v “Ordnung der gemain Gottsleithen heißlich einlaßen betreffendt auf widerrueffen gestellt 1570.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289N, f. 330r [18 Aug. 1576]. Mack Walker, German Home Towns: Community, State and General Estate 1648–1871 (Ithaca and London, 1971), pp. 30–1. Walker cites the following eighteenth-century legal maxim as an expression of the home town’s animosity towards the peasantry: “No shit-hens fly over the town wall.” I do not myself share Walker’s view that the farm village had no interest in excluding outsiders, although it is certainly true that the town was markedly more protective of its membership than the village.

76


be emphasized, however, that the same doubling applied to offenses committed inside mills, smithies, and inns.103 In other words, those places deemed essential to the material sustenance of rural society were singled out for the same special status accorded to those essential to its spiritual sustenance. The moral geography of the Ottobeuren lands is thrown into still sharper relief by the aftermath of the Peasants’ War. It has been seen that the Abbot was ultimately willing to readmit to the fold even the most unruly of his wayward subjects, but he also needed to ensure that the events of 1525 would never be repeated. Accordingly, upon release from prison the ex-rebels were saddled with a series of prohibitions, which were imposed either for life or until lifted by the monastery. Some of these disabilities were straightforwardly political, such as ineligibility of the pardoned rebels for election as judge, Amman, or Vierer or the abrogation of their rights to bear weapons. More strikingly spatial was the social quarantine which the monastery sought to impose on the ex-rebels. They were forbidden to attend the meetings of the Gemeinde, and with the exception of attendance at mass they were further prohibited from visiting “taverns, public festivals . . . common bathhouses or any other occasion or place or general gathering of the people” (in extreme cases the pardoned rebel might also be forbidden to leave his home village without the foreknowledge and consent of the Vogt).104 The monks knew that these public places were nodes of sociability where individual grievances readily coalesced into collective protest. By ridding these spaces of those subjects whose loyalty was deemed suspect, the monks hoped to fragment any subversive tendencies among the peasantry and thereby minimize the risk of further uprisings. But political dissent was far from the only offense punished by these kinds of spatial restrictions. Throughout the sixteenth century, the monastery would impose similar bans on leaving the monastery lands (at all) or even one’s home village (for more than a day) on a whole range of offenders, including those guilty of assault, wood theft, adultery and incest, fraud, or even threats and insults.105 Repeat offenders might even be required to promise “if two or three [people] are standing together in the village, not to stand or come near them.”106 103 104 105

106

Bosl, ed. Dokumente, Part 2, Vol. IV, Document 94. Strafordnung 1540, § 12, p. 355. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Documents 291 P–R, ff. 493r–499r (Urfehdebriefe of Hanns Syber, Benedict Dietz, and Hanns Dietz all of Ottobeuren [all 3 Feb. 1527]). Ibid., respectively Documents 301L, ff. 828r–830r (Urfehdebrief of Ulrich Böckh of Frechenrieden [17 Aug. 1559]); 293W, ff. 668r–671r (Urfehdebrief of Hans Besch of Untermotz [9 Sep. 1557]); 300F, ff. 805r–808r (Urfehdebrief of Simon Enderas genannt Stromair of Hüners [21 Aug. 1559]); 307C, ff. 1029r–1032v (Urfehdebrief of Veit Hiltprandt of Günz [18 Jan. 1530]); 30AA, ff. 956r–963v (Urfehdebrief of Jörg Schlückh of Sontheim [7 Mar. 1566]). Ibid., Document 308J, ff. 1072r–1076r (Urfehdebrief of Gall Schmidt of Niederrieden for assault with weapons [12 Feb. 1530]). For his earlier violent offense of unspecified nature see Document 308G, ff. 1067v–1069v (Urfehdebrief of Gall Schmidt of Niederrieden [4 Nov. 1528]).


77

There were in fact two different kinds of quarantines. Some offenders the monastery thought best to hold within certain spatial limits, others it preferred to keep without. Thus Hans Sauter of Attenhausen, convicted of slander in 1531, was given two weeks to leave the lordship of the monastery and was forbidden ever to return without special permission. Waldburga Schuechstein and her cousin and guardian, Christoff Claus of Frechenrieden, were banished on similar notice and conditions when found guilty of incest in 1559, but Georg Nueber of Oberwesterheim was given only three days to leave in 1548 after threatening to haul the Vogt from his saddle and kill him.107 Banishments of this sort were often accompanied by demarcations of extraordinary detail. In 1462, for example, Johann Städelin of Sontheim was required not only to leave the monastery lands proper, but also to stay out of the area “within one half-mile distance in a circle around the said monastery [lands].” Enderas Schmidt of Niederrieden was saddled with a two-mile exclusion zone in 1544, while ten years later Jacob Schiess and his wife, Hillaria Wieland, were ordered to stay at least twelve miles away. Georg Schorer of Buchenbronnen was not only ordered to keep fully twenty miles away from the Abbot’s borders, he was also obliged to promise not to spend two nights in the same place until he had reached the prescribed distance.108 Unsatisfied with this level of specificity, the monastery also mapped out “amnesty corridors” within the various exclusion zones in an effort to mitigate the severity of banishment. The cleric Bartholme Bärtlin, exiled from his parish of Sontheim in 1547 for covert Protestant preaching, was forbidden ever again to live in the monastery lands, but he was allowed the right to traverse them as long as he promised to stay only in public inns and then not to talk to the subjects of the monastery “without honest and honorable cause.”109 Perhaps the best example of the persistently spatial focus of Ottobeuren criminal law is provided by the career of Adam Mayr of Rempolz. In 1549 Adam’s fiscal mismanagement (he was deeply indebted to a series of Jewish moneylenders) and his “criminal, rebellious and insulting public threats of violence against the monastery and its subjects” earned him a prohibition on leaving the Ottobeuren lands. Two years later, with the help of his wife, Adam added a series of thefts to his record. He was again arrested, but this time he was interrogated, tortured, and sentenced to death on the gallows. Upon a request for mercy by relatives, the monastery agreed to commute Adam’s sentence, but it insisted that he and his wife and family leave the Ottobeuren lands and 107 108

109

Ibid., respectively Document 303D, ff. 842v–845r [21 Nov. 1531]); Document 301K, ff. 826v– 828r [17 Aug. 1559]; Document 305E, ff. 984r–990r [2 Aug. 1548]. Ibid., respectively Document 304B, ff. 876v–882v [6 July 1462]; Document 308Q, ff. 1091v– 1095r [9 May 1544]; Document 305F, ff. 990r–996r [11 Dec. 1554]; Document 291NN, ff. 538r–548r [28 Apr. 1584]. Ibid., Document 304X, ff. 946r–949r [16 Aug. 1547].

78


remain at least twelve miles away for the rest of their lives. As for Adam’s four young children, the Abbot ruled that “as soon as they leave his household [Unterhaltung], they shall be allowed to travel through the monastery’s lands and to use the common highways [through them], in order to seek their fortunes, but they shall in no way, unless specifically permitted by the Abbot, be allowed to establish permanent residence in the monastery lands.”110 Still more carefully protected than the privileged public places was the peasant’s house. The law punished any offense committed against someone inside his or her own house with a fourfold fine.111 Rural culture accorded similar respect to the house, and angry peasants habitually challenged their enemies to come out into the street and fight, rather than violate the integrity of the house.112 Efforts by the monastery to regulate peasant dwellings with regard to fire safety113 were also regarded as an affront to the autonomy of the house. In 1586, four peasants in the hamlet of Waldmühle went so far as to assemble an illegal meeting of the Gemeinde in order to prevent house inspection by the headman, Vierer, and Pittel.114 The walls of the house were a barrier not just from the outside in, but also from the inside out. Just as the monastery sought to prevent political criminals from entering public spaces, it also sought to prevent other criminals from leaving private ones. Elsa Steler of Niederrieden was arrested for witchcraft after multiple denunciations in 1561. She must have been a woman of uncommon strength and courage, for despite physical infirmity, she withstood torture without confessing to anything. Impressed by her fortitude and moved by the pleas of her husband and relatives (though not completely convinced of her innocence), the Vogt released her from prison, but under a telling set of conditions. Elsa was obliged to promise that 110 111 112

113

114

Ibid., Document 293F, ff. 621r–627v [20 May 1549] and Document 293G, ff. 627v–632r [10 Oct. 1551]. Bosl, ed. Dokumente, Part 2, Vol. IV, Document 94. Strafordnung 1540, § 13, pp. 355–6. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 300B, ff. 794r–797r (Urfehdebrief of Michael and Hans Kessler of Berg [10 June 1555]); Document 301D, ff. 816r–818r (Urfehdebrief of Jörg Biechler of Frechenrieden [22 June 1529]); Document 307H, ff. 1043r–1044v (Urfehdebrief of Jörg Zöberlin of Schweighausen [27 Mar. 1556]); Document 308L, ff. 1078r–1081r (Urfehdebrief of Andreas Schmidt of Niederrieden [4 Aug. 1533]). Ibid., Document 298X, ff. 381v–382r: “Bauding Buch Anno 1551”. These regulations required every house to be equipped with fire hooks and ladders, and also ordered village officials to conduct regular house and hearth inspections to ensure compliance. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I (14) 1586/7, Böhen: Leonhard Lang, Jacob Schindelin, Jerg Geromüller and Johann Martin “haben in der Waldtmille ein Gemaindt gehalten, den Pittel, hauptman, und vier die feuer statten nit besuchen wellen lassen.” Note in the same register for the village of Niederrieden: “Martin Maÿr hatt als ain Gerichtsman, der sollich suchen verschweygen soll, den Miller gewarndt, man werde ime die Mille besuchen – [fined] £4 heller.” Hanns Eegartter of the same village was also fined £4 for forewarning the miller of the impending inspection. The two village mills themselves were found wanting and their owners were fined £4. Note also in this register the fining of ten residents of the village of Wolfertschwenden £1 each for having unsafe hearths.


79

henceforth, and for the rest of my life, unless I receive permission from the said lord Vogt, or his successor or from the lordship [i.e. the monastery], I will not leave the house in which I now live or into which I may in the future move. [I will] not go out for any reason, but will peacefully and inoffensively remain within, unless it should happen that I must leave because of fire, which God forbid, and otherwise not, and [I will] also not cause or move any company to come to [visit] me.115 Although similar kinds of disabilites would also be imposed on adulteresses and suspected (female) poisoners,116 I can find no example of a man being punished in the same way. This disparity of punishment is thus yet another example of the instinctively patriarchal bent of law at Ottobeuren. At the same time the form which punishment took – circumscription of the offender’s daily life – must be recognized as an expression of an equally fundamental instinct: the ideal of a discrete living space, within which the household enclosed its own evils, and from which it defended itself from the evils of the outside world. This ideal of the autonomous household, separate and independent from the others around it, found its most socially consequential expression in the inheritance customs of the peasantry. Although Upper Swabia has traditionally been regarded as a region of impartible inheritance, this was manifestly not the case in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The monks certainly supported the residential distinctness of individual households. As in other Swabian lordships,117 it was in fact an offense at sixteenth-century Ottobeuren for married children to remain in the same house as their parents without special permission.118 With 115

116

117 118

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 308Y, ff. 1118r–1124v (Urfehdebrief of Elsa Steler and her husband Peter Mair of Niederrieden [26 Sep. 1561]). As was the case with most Upper Swabian monasteries, there seem to have been very few witchcraft trials at Ottobeuren (for the general pattern see Wolfgang Behringer, Witchcraft Persecutions in Bavaria: Popular Magic, Religious Zealotry and Reason of State in Early Modern Europe, trans. J. C. Grayson and David Lederer, (Cambridge, 1997), p. 152). Elsa’s qualified acquittal is the only sixteenth-century trial that I have found, and it is suggestive that women accused of poisoning at Ottobeuren were not automatically charged with witchcraft (see note 116). The peasantry themselves certainly believed in witches. In 1602, Hans Sommer of Hawangen and his wife accused Hans’ aunt of being a witch (“Unholdin”), and Hans beat the unfortunate woman very severely (“gar ubl”). The monastery, by contrast, was uninterested in prosecuting the aunt, although it did fine Hans £2 for his brutality. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 22 “Strafregister 1602/3.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 299E, ff. 782v–785r (Urfehdebrief of Agnesa Rot of Böhen [24 July 1545]); Document 308S, ff. 1100v–1104v (Urfehdebrief of Agatha Schweiggart and her husband Jörg Rewel of Niederrieden [23 Nov. 1548]). The 1528 village ordinance of nearby Volkratshofen explicitly forbade married children from staying longer than one year with their parents. Blickle, Memmingen, p. 247 n. 497. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 1 (1546): “Lang Hans” of Benningen fined £1 5 ß for allowing his son-in-law to move in with him without permission. Similarly KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 25 (1604/5): Jerg Nueber of Westerheim’s daughter “is always at her father’s [house]; she is ordered to leave because of her husband who was from Attenhausen – [fined] 10 ß.” See also ibid., Heft 17 (1593/4) where Christian Sitt of Benningen is fined 10 ß because he “has repeatedly taken in his stepson and his [i.e. the stepson’s] wife, despite prohibition.” It is possible that in

80


regard to peasant landholding, on the other hand, the monastery was concerned to preserve the integrity of rent-producing units. Once the peasantry gained firmer title to the land, however, it was harder to prevent them from doing what they wanted with it. And what a great many of the Abbot’s subjects wanted to do with the land was divide it. The strength of this fissile impulse was often remarkable. The hamlet of Schachen, for example, consisted of a single large Hof which was acquired by Johann Biler in 1524. Biler saw three of his children grow to adulthood, and in 1542 he ceded half of the land to his son-in-law, Jos Epplin, while promising to give the other half later to his son, Johann the younger. The second daughter was given an interest in her sister’s share. Equitable and decisive though it may seem, the partition was still not enough to content Jos Epplin’s prickly sense of independence, and he was soon embroiled in a series of quarrels with his father-in-law. The two men seem to have found a great deal to argue about, but it is striking how many of the disputes were over the specificity and integrity of the boundaries between the two farms. How were the costs of maintaining the water pipes to be shared? Was Johann senior entitled to drive a cart through his son-in-law’s property? To whom did the two cherry trees along the village street belong? Exactly how should the garden be divided between the households? In the end the dispute consumed both of them. By 1546 Johann senior was dead, while money problems had forced Jos Epplin to undergo the humiliation of selling back his share of the land to his mother-in-law.119 In the face of peasant insistence, the monastery was ultimately willing to set aside its misgivings about subdivision, as long as its landlordly rights and perquisites remained unaffected. In the hamlet of Stephansried, for example, the Aberöll family was granted a property in Erblehenrecht in 1457. In 1479 they petitioned the monastery for permission to divide the property among themselves, and were allowed to do so provided “that they the tenants none the less shall and will hold the property according to the [terms of the 1457] Erblehen charter, and also [provided] that this subdivision occasion no prejudice to or diminution of the majesty, freedom, prerogatives, annuities, revenues, tithes, and rents of the monastery and overlord, as if this subdivision had not been permitted.”120 During the fifteenth century, the conversion to and creation of Erblehen tenures often went hand in hand with authorization to subdivide. Thus in 1427, two isolated holdings known as Bernhalden and Kräpflins were granted in heritable tenure to one Johann der Menknecht and his heirs “that they should

119 120

this last case the stepson had been banished for a criminal offense, but there is no suggestion of this in the MS., and the term “despite prohibition” (uber verbott) is ambiguous. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 969 [6 June 1524], 1240 [12 Feb. 1542], 1289 [14 June 1546], 1293 [25 Nov. 1546], and 1355 [3 Mar. 1550]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, ff. 33r–34r.


81

keep them tilled and build [upon] them as many houses and barns as they desire, always, however, without any damages to the overlord.”121 Alternatively a single landholding might be granted out in heritable tenure to a group of people on the understanding that they might subdivide it. A 1466 charter granting a wood and field to Peter Hartmann, Hans Maier, and Hans Dreier in the village of Böhen declares that “the tenants shall make no changes to the Erblehen [property]; they may, however, divide the property among themselves, and make four parts out of it, or keep the land together undivided, as they wish.”122 Sometimes the monastery would even divide up its own properties itself. Thus in 1462, Abbot Wilhelm von Lustenau converted the tenure of a Gotteshausrecht holding known as the “Geyßell” in the hamlet of Leupolz to Erblehenrecht, and granted it to Jos Schweygger, Connrat Khlockher, and Hanns Lautterweinn. The tenants received shares of one half, one quarter, and one quarter of the “Geyßell” respectively.123 By the sixteenth century, there was less forested land available for clearance and therefore somewhat fewer new Erblehen holdings were created. This did not, however, put a stop to the subdivision of existing ones. In the hamlet of Wolfarts, the widow Ursula Winneberger began the subdivision of her deceased husband’s Hof by ceding one quarter of the land to her son-in-law, Veit Zedtler, in 1504.124 In 1524 we find five siblings who have inherited “half of seven parts of the holding in Motzen.”125 A charter issued in 1534 describes a tenant as holding “one quarter of the entire [hamlet of] Karlass, which has been divided into five parts.”126 In the hamlet of Bibelsberg, the huge Maierhof, intact at least since 1421, was split among three members of the Aberöll family in 1540.127 The long-term implications of this pattern are obvious: fragmentation of the heritable tenancies. In 1443 the hamlet of Langenberg consisted of only two such holdings, farmed by the widow Anna Blenckh and her children. By 1544, however, the two holdings had been subdivided into seven and by 1551 into nine smaller holdings.128 A similar process unfolded in the hamlet of Hohenheim, which is first mentioned in the Ottobeuren charters in 1403. A single large Hof was divided into halves in 1441, into quarters by 1480, and by 1544 into nine 121

122 123 124 125 126 127 128

Ibid., ff. 234v–235r. Similarly the grant in (Warlins and Lampolz) in 1430, where the charter declares that the tenants “may also build additional houses upon it [the Hof ], [but only if this is done] without [causing] loss to the monastery.” Ibid., ff. 254r–v. Ibid., ff. 221r–222v. Ibid., ff. 150r–151v. Similarly the grant of the Felsenberg near Dietratried in equal shares to five tenants in 1463. Ibid., ff. 197r–198r. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 684 [27 Mar. 1504]. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 970 [13 June 1524]. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 1120 [9 Jan. 1534]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, ff. 117r–119v. Ibid., ff. 44r–45r; KL Ottobeuren 29, ff. 8v–10r.

82


1440 c. 1470? 1495 1505 1515 1520 1525 1544 Figure 2.1 Subdivision of the Höfe in the Hamlet of Reuthen, 1440–1544 Note: The squares represent proportional shares of the total rent payment, which was calibrated to the surface of the holdings. Reconstruction is helped by the fact that the scribe of the 1544 rent roll preserved a record of the hamlet’s original structure by grouping the fragmented holdings as subdivisions of the original three Höfe. See StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, ff. 19v–21v. Sources: StAA, KU Ottobeuren 501–1256; KL Ottobeuren 18, 29, 64, 541 (2) and 600

small tenancies.129 Still more dramatic was the fragmentation of the hamlet of Reuthen (see Figure 2.1). In 1440 Abbot Johann Schedler granted the hamlet’s ¨ original three large Höfe in Erblehenrecht to Jacob Oxlin, Hans Maier, and Conrad Maier. The annual Gült for each Hof was to be five, six, and six viertel of oats, respectively, for a total of seventeen. In 1544, the total rent obligation recorded in the monastery’s rent roll was virtually the same: seventeen and a quarter viertel of oats. Over the course of the intervening 104 years, however, the three large Höfe had been cut up into thirteen smaller tenancies. Since a grant in Erblehenrecht invested not only the tenant, but also his heirs with a right to the property, it may seem unsurprising that heritable tenancies were so often subdivided. A grant in Gotteshausrecht, by contrast, was a right limited to a single person for the term of his own life only. Not only did Gotteshausrecht charters routinely contain explicit prohibitions on partitioning the land,130 but the monastery’s ordinances even prescribed a list of farm equipment and supplies (a wagon, a plough, two bales of hay, twenty-four viertel of oats, and all of the straw and manure) which a departing tenant was forbidden 129 130

Hoffmann, ed. Urkunden, no. 161 [28 May 1403]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 18, ff. 62v–68r; KL Ottobeuren 29, ff. 13v–14v. See for example StAA, KU Ottobeuren 419 [6 Feb. 1484]. Note thas this Hof was none the less partitioned thirteen years later. KU Ottobeuren 596 [1 Dec. 1497]. See also Figure 2.2.


83

131

to remove from the Hof. Nevertheless, sternness of language was mitigated by flexibility of practice. And as was the case with de facto heritability, Gotteshausrecht farms proved no less susceptible to partition than their Erblehenrecht counterparts. Evidence for the partibility of life-term Höfe is of two sorts. The first is the simple description of these properties in the monastery’s charters and Erdschatzbücher, or entry fine registers. These descriptions provide unambiguous evidence that even the Gotteshausrecht holdings must have undergone subdivisions at some point in the past. There is no other way to explain the repeated use of the term “half-Hof ” to describe Gotteshausrecht properties in the villages of Sontheim (1521, 1549), Hawangen (1536, 1537, 1541), Attenhausen (1542), Schlegelsberg (1550), Dietratried (1554), Böhen (1558), and Oberwesterheim (1561). In the village of Böhen there are even references to quarter-Höfe (1526, 1542) and eighth-Höfe (1543).132 The monastery’s rent rolls provide further indirect evidence of the subdivision of the Gotteshausrecht properties. On a number of occasions the roll records the names of two tenants for a single Hof and then two separate rent payments, one for each tenant. The obvious implication is that although the Hof is considered by the monastery to be a single fiscal unit, it has for the purposes of land use effectively been divided into two.133 Thus for example the rent roll for 1544 lists a Hof in Untermoosbach held by Barthlome Weissenhorn and Lienhart Bürklin. The total grain rent was 6.5 malter, half of which was paid by each tenant. The same pattern may be found for a single Hof in Böhen jointly held by Barthlome Hegel and Hans Höltzlin: a total rent of 3.71 malter of which 2.47 malter was paid by Hegel and the remaining 1.24 malter by Höltzlin.134 The mass of sixteenth-century references to subdivided Gotteshausrecht holdings do not by themselves establish that partition was then still current, but there is abundant evidence from other charters that this was in fact the case. A large Hof in Oberwesterheim was split between Alexander Maier and his brother Johann in 1511.135 The Attenhausen Maierhof was subdivided in 131

132

133 134 135

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289X (c. 1551), ff. 368r–369v (regulations for the hamlets of Ottobeuren parish) and ff. 372r–373v (regulations for the villages). If the new tenant objected to the quality of the wagon left behind, he was to be compensated with a full cartload of manure. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 923, 986, 1164, 1170, 1333, and 1365; StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, ff. 13v, 65v, 85v, 89v, 91r, 125r, and 179r. The monastery’s ordinance (c. 1551) regulating the stocking of Gotteshausrecht holdings explicitly recognizes a difference between “full” and “half ” Höfe. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289X, ff. 368v–369v. The 1544 rent roll also documents this pattern for Erblehenrecht properties, e.g., in Unter- and Oberwolfertschwenden. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, ff. 43r, 46r. Ibid., ff. 31r, 55v. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 796 [8 Nov. 1511]. See also KU Ottobeuren 863 [6 Oct. 1516], in which Alexander’s Hof passes to the man his widow later married.

84

the peasants of ottobeuren Conrad Wagner † c. 1493 1493 1484

Johann Wagner † 1534 – 44

1493 Peter Wagner † c. 1546 1497

Enderas Wagner † c. 1518

Michael Wagner † c. 1519

1511

1519 1518 c. 1540 Paul Beringer Clement Schussmann Johann Wagner Johann Rewel 1534 1519 1541

c. 1540 Johann Wagner jr.

Johann Muller

Figure 2.2 Subdivision of the Höfe of the Wagner family of Sontheim, 1484–1541. Death dates are denoted by †. Sources: StAA, KU Ottobeuren 419–1233; KL Ottobeuren 27, 29, 64, 541 (2), 600 and 601-I

1512,136 as was the Hof of Adam Schick.137 The brothers Thoma and Johann Dreier of Dietratried each received half of a Hof after their stepfather gave up his own tenancy in 1513.138 After the death of Hans Brew of Benningen, his land was divided between his brother Michael and his widow, Ursula Blödler, in 1513. An additional piece was split off from Michael’s share in 1518; the remnant passed to his son in 1533.139 In some cases, charters have survived in sufficient numbers to permit the documentation of multi-generational partition, as in the case of the Wagner family of Sontheim (see Figure 2.2). Explicit divisions of Gotteshausrecht holdings are also recorded in the Erdschatzbücher. In the village of Sontheim, for example, Jerg Schick’s Hof was divided between his nephews Barthlome and Jerg Schick in 1546.140 Jacob Weissenhorn’s Hof in the village of Hawangen was split into two halves, which passed separately to his two sons-in-law in 1559 and 1560.141 Some divisions even took place without the pressure of kin. Thus in the hamlet of Guggenberg, a Hof was split among three apparently unrelated people in 1571.142 136 137 138 139 140

141 142

StAA, KU Ottobeuren 803 and 804 [both 1 Mar. 1512]. Caspar Maier had been admitted to the entire Maierhof on 3 February, 1483. KU Ottobeuren 406. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 802 and 805 [both 1 Mar. 1512]. Adam Schick had been admitted to the entire Hof on 15 March 1498. KU Ottobeuren 604. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 816–17 [12 Feb. 1513]. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 822 and 823 [14 Oct. 1513], KU 876 [8 Jan. 1518], and KU 1107 [14 Jan. 1533]. The original Hof is described in the 1544 rent roll at StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, f. 70v; the transfer is recorded in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, ff. 139v–140r. Note that the 1567 roll still treats the separated halves as a single rent-paying unit with two tenants. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 30, ff. 73r–v. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, f. 29v; KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 16r. These two holdings were also classed as a single unit in 1567. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 30, f. 31r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 9r.


85

Uneven documentary survival makes it difficult to assess the long-term pattern of partibility of the Gotteshausrecht Höfe (as was possible in the case of the hamlet of Reuthen). For the short term, a partial balance sheet can be drawn up for the village of Attenhausen, where the 1544 rent roll lists twenty-one Hof complexes. At least nine of these descended from the partition of four larger Höfe between 1504 and 1533. Other subdivisions may well have taken place in this interval, but ambiguities of the evidence make it difficult to pronounce with certainty.143 As significant as the frequency of these partitions is the circumstances under which they took place: in opposition to the wishes of the monastery. The conveyances of the Kopp family of Attenhausen144 are a good example of this pattern (see Figure 2.3). Enderas Kopp, who is first mentioned in 1473,145 was the tenant of a very large Gotteshausrecht Hof measuring some 113 jauchert (46.8 hectares), including a valuable sawmill.146 In 1504 he asked to convey all but 10 jauchert and the sawmill to his nephew Peter Kopp. The monastery was leery about the proposal, and agreed only after extracting separate sealed oaths from Enderas and his son Veit that the separated lands would be reunited with the sawmill and retained remnant at Enderas’ death.147 Not only was the agreement never honored, but the monastery found itself obliged to assent to a second partition in 1511, when Peter split off half of his Hof and gave it to his son Galli. So completely had the 1504 agreement been abandoned that the monastery agreed to allow Galli to build a new house on his half of the land, and even to provide the building materials itself. Two days later Galli’s cousin Veit was quietly invested with the sawmill.148 The fragmentation which characterized spaces of production at Ottobeuren was an equally prominent feature of spaces of circulation. That is to say, marketplaces and exchange circuits were marked by an encapsulation and 143

144 145 146 147 148

For example, the Hof of Caspar Hegel first appears in the Ottobeuren records in 1536, when it passed to him from one Conrad Sauter. The land had quite possibly been split off from the large Hof to which a certain Ulrich Hegel (Caspar’s father?) was admitted in 1512. When Ulrich Hegel died in 1534, his (unnamed) widow was given temporary custody of at least some of his land, which then passed to a son, Alexander, in 1538. Ulrich’s widow may have married Conrad Sauter, but there is no way to be sure. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 802 [1 Mar. 1512], 1142 [11 Jan. 1536], and 1188 [2 Aug. 1538]. See also the less detailed entries of KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 125r. A more complex problem is presented by the career of Hans Schmidt, who accumulated at least four separate holdings, including the Attenhausen smithy, between 1490 and 1498. He conveyed one to an apparently unrelated man in 1498, and then divided the rest between his son and son-in-law in 1501. Given the disparate origin of Schmidt’s properties, it seems misleading to class the “subdivision” of his lands in 1501 as an example of partible inheritance. KU Ottobeuren 481 [26 Jan. 1490], 519 [7 Feb. 1492], 600 and 602 [both 29 Jan. 1498], 611 [9 Aug. 1498], 640 and 641 [both 21 Apr. 1501]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 601-II, ff. 12r–v; KL Ottobeuren 600, ff. 235v, 237r, and 238r. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 339 [10 Nov. 1473]. This estimate is based on measurements of the remnants made between 1569 and 1572. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, ff. 128v–129v. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 681–2 [18 Mar. 1504]. StAA, KU Ottobeuren 787 and 788 [28 and 30 May 1511].

86


by 1473 Johann Kopp

Enderas Kopp † c. 1511 1511

1504

Veit Kopp 1528

Peter Kopp † c. 1532 1532

1511 Simon Kopp † c. 1560

Johann Kopp † c. 1530

Galli Kopp † 1533

1556 Mang Kopp † c. 1575 Figure 2.3 Subdivision of the Höfe of the Kopp family of Attenhausen, 1473–1556. Death dates are denoted by †. Sources: StAA, KU Ottobeuren 339–1112; KL Ottobeuren 25 (Mü.B.), 27, 29, 64, 541 (2), 600 and 601-I

rivalry strongly reminiscent of the subcommunities of wealth, gender, kinship, enmity, and residence into which the Ottobeuren peasantry was divided. This description may seem odd to the modern mind, which regards commerce as an inherently integrative process (hence the tendency to think in terms of ‘the’ market). As shall be seen, however, sixteenth-century markets did not function in this way, and in large part because almost no one wanted them to. It was not for lack of marketplaces that the sixteenth-century economy was so internally disconnected. Indeed, the most striking feature of the economic geography of the region at the close of the Middle Ages was the creation of new markets all over the countryside. In neighboring Bavaria, the establishment of rural markets had tapered off after the High Middle Ages, with few foundations post-dating the year 1300.149 In Upper Swabia, by contrast, the late fifteenth century saw a surge of foundations (including Pfaffenhofen in 1479, Legau, Martinszell, Unterthingen, and Buchenberg in 1485, Kirchheim in 1490, Oberstdorf in 1495, and Ottobeuren itself in 1488, privileges expanded 149

Wilhelm Liebhart, “Zur spätmittelalterlichen, landesherrlichen Marktgründungspolitik in Oberund Niederbayern” in Pankraz Fried, ed., Bayerische Landesgeschichte an der Universität Augsburg 1975–1977 (Sigmaringen, 1979), pp. 151–2.


87

in 1498), with the result that the countryside was much more thickly strewn with markets than the Wittelsbach dominions to the east.150 Of course, the multiplication of markets is not an unambiguous sign of commercial quickening, since new foundations also reflected political and territorial considerations. At the same time, it would be wrong to attribute the overall pattern entirely to the machinations of statecraft. The rural market network in southern Germany persisted in the form it had reached by 1500 almost without alteration for another three hundred and fifty years.151 Had the late medieval foundations been attempts to plant markets in a commercial desert, they would have withered away en masse, as a few of them actually did.152 The dense urban network of the German southwest further intensified the prominence of markets in rural life. At Ottobeuren the monastery lands were ringed by cities on all sides, first and foremost Memmingen immediately to the west, but also Isny and Kempten to the south, Mindelheim and Augsburg to the east and northeast, and Ulm to the far north. Commerce was the lifeblood of these cities, and their merchants traded all over Europe. The Vöhlins of Memmingen, for example, maintained factors as far afield as Saragossa, Antwerp, Vienna, and Venice. For the trade in luxury items, the role of the city was often no more than that of a conduit. Thus ginger and pepper might be purchased in Genoa, hauled over the Alps to Memmingen, and then shipped down the Rhine to Cologne, occasioning barely a ripple in the Ottobeuren villages. The bulk of Memmingen’s trade, however, was in more modest articles produced in the immediately surrounding region.153 And as buyers and sellers of grain, salt, cattle, and textiles, the merchants of Memmingen exercised a profound influence on the economic life of the monastery lands. During the closing decades of the fifteenth century and the opening decades of the sixteenth, the commercial ties between Memmingen and its rural hinterland strengthened considerably. The bond had always been close. The Abbot of Ottobeuren was a citizen of the city and maintained a house there for the sale of rent-derived agricultural products. Both the currency and the weights and measures of the city were in standardized use throughout the Abbot’s dominions. 150

151 152

153

See the map of medieval and early modern market towns in Max Spindler, Bayerischer Geschichtsatlas (Munich, 1969), pp. 22–3. Based on 1844 boundaries, Upper Bavaria had one market town for every 228 square kilometers, whereas Bavarian Swabia had one for every 131 square kilometers. Areas taken from the Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Königreich Bayern, Band XII (Munich, 1913), p. 1. Roman Maurer, “Entwicklung und Funktionswandel der Märkte in Altbayern seit 1800,” Miscellanea Bavarica Monacensia 30 (1971), p. 9. The same point has been made by Tom Scott for the Upper Rhine, which saw a similar multiplication of rural markets at this time. Tom Scott, “Economic Conflict and Co-operation on the Upper Rhine 1450–1600” in E. J. Kouri and Tom Scott, eds., Politics and Society in Reformation Europe (New York, 1987), pp. 210–31, at pp. 220–223. Raimund Eirich, Memmingens Wirtschaft und Patriziat von 1347 bis 1551 (Weissenhorn, 1971), pp. 106–12, 146–50.

88


16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 1560

Frechenrieden Memmingen 1570

1580

1590

1600

Figure 2.4 Rye prices in Memmingen and Frechenrieden in Pfunde per malter, 1566–96 Sources: StadtA MM D Folioband 99, D 102/1a-1b; StAA, KL Ottobeuren 654

In the 1490s Memmingen went to considerable efforts to improve the roads connecting it to its hinterland, and both the city fathers (1491) and the Abbot (1498) acquired toll privileges in order to profit from the swelling flow of trade through the region. This commercial surge was primarily driven by local exchange, as is indicated by the expansion in the 1520s of the Memmingen weekly market, which was dominated by buyers and sellers from the immediate region, and the concomitant decline in the 1530s of the annual market, whose patrons came from further afield.154 The later sixteenth century provides a still more vivid example of the commercial intertwining of the Abbot’s dominions and the city. Every year the churchwardens in the monastery villages drew up an account of the receipts and disbursements of the parish church. A certain proportion of the income was derived in grain, which was sold and the cash value then entered into the account. These Heiligenrechnungen, as the accounts are known, thus provide an invaluable record of rural grain prices which may fruitfully be compared with equivalent Memmingen prices. A fairly complete run of these accounts is available for a number of villages during the years 1566–96. The close synchrony of prices between town and country is illustrated in Figure 2.4. At least on the surface, then, the comforting presence of familiar categories – money prices and markets – imparts a respectably modern appearance to 154

Rolf Kiessling, Die Stadt und ihr Land – Umlandpolitik, Bürgerbesitz und Wirtschaftsgefüge in Ostschwaben vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert (Cologne and Vienna, 1989), pp. 430–43.


89

sixteenth-century rural exchange. If we dig a little deeper, however, two kinds of anomalies begin to emerge. First, buying and selling turn out to have had a highly unusual shape at Ottobeuren, by which is meant that monetary exchange was altogether differently constituted in time and space than superficial resemblances to a modern market would lead us to believe. Second, money itself had a different role to that which it has in a modern economy. Let us begin with the spatial dimension of market exchange. We have seen that the impulse for exchange among the peasantry was served by a dense network of rural markets, a network fortified by the overarching commercial penumbra of the city of Memmingen. Intuitively, it seems that this commercial landscape should result in a single homogeneous market. Traders would quickly capitalize on any opportunity to buy low in one locality and sell high in another, with the result that internal price discrepancies would rapidly be levelled. Indeed, for those who take a supply and demand approach to price formation, the very existence of a market is defined in terms of this homogeneity. In the words of Marshall’s classic 1890 formulation, “Economists understand by the term market the whole of any region in which buyers and sellers are in such free intercourse with one another that the prices of the same goods tend to equality easily and quickly.”155 This does not mean that prices throughout an economy are everywhere the same. But in a small marketing region such as the Ottobeuren villages, where close proximity made for negligible differences in transport costs, prices should be uniform. And yet they were not. Price differentials in the sixteenth century were surprisingly high, even between neighboring villages. In 1569, for example, the price of a malter of rye in the village of Hawangen was 2.4 gulden. Next door in Frechenrieden the price was 2.8 gulden. In Günz the malter of rye sold for 2.86 gulden, and in Niederdorf for 4.0 gulden. In other words, in four neighboring villages all within walking distance of each other, the price of the same measure of the same grain varied by 66.7 percent. And as is clear from Figure 2.5, there was nothing at all extraordinary about a differential of this order. In at least half of the years in the period 1566–96, in fact, rye prices in these villages varied by at least 50 percent. Each village was a spatial isolate, an exchange economy unto itself. If the spatial dimension of monetary exchange at Ottobeuren resembled nothing so much as a collection of fragments, this was equally true of its temporal dimension. For a society in which exchange was well-nigh universal, the actual rhythm of buying and selling was startlingly discontinuous. Perhaps the best illustration of this pattern is provided by the commercial activities of the monastery itself. As will be seen in chapter 3, the monastery derived a sizeable proportion of its income from the sale of grain. A few of these sales 155

Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, 8th edn (London, repr.1946,), p. 324.

90


140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 1570

1575

1580

1585

1590

1595

Figure 2.5 Range of variation (percent) in rye prices among four Ottobeuren villages, 1566–96 Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 654, 657, 744a; KA Ottobeuren 189, 240

Memmingen Apr

Jun

Aug

Oct

Dec

Feb Ottobeuren

July

Sept

Nov

Jan

Mar

May

Figure 2.6 Temporal distribution of grain sales at Memmingen, 1488/9 and Ottobeuren, 1527/8. The shading denotes those weeks on which grain was sold. Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 1; Kiessling, Die Stadt und ihr Land, p. 431

took place in the monastery’s house in Memmingen, but most of the grain was offered for sale in the market town of Ottobeuren. The records of the monastery granary do not cover all of the grain sold to the Ottobeuren peasantry, although the granary drew buyers from nearly every hamlet and village in the Abbot’s dominions. These records do, however, represent the transactions of a vendor who not only sold more grain than anyone else in the monastery lands, but more importantly always had grain to sell. The monastery milled grain fifty out of fifty-two weeks in the year156 and regularly had grain stores left over when the harvests recommenced in the fall. Figure 2.6 presents the weekly distribution 156

See the milling schedule for the years 1549–52 in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 164.


91

of the monastery’s grain sales in the year 1527/8. The sporadic nature of the pattern is arresting, particularly when compared with the smooth continuity of sales in Memmingen. The phenomenon was to some extent a reflection of the natural rhythms of an agrarian society, where income arrived all in a rush with the fall harvest and then had to be stretched out over the rest of the year. Even those who acquired their subsistence by means of exchange could not escape the influence of the seasons, since the demand for day laborers to help with mowing and threshing always produced a surge of earning opportunities at harvest time.157 None the less, the ebb and flow of the crop cycle is at best only a partial explanation for the irregular pattern of grain sales. Despite the importance of harvest time day labor, we cannot ignore the leveling introduced into the earning patterns of the rural poor by cow-herding, building maintenance, and other agricultural work unrelated to the harvest, not to mention industrial by-employment such as spinning and weaving. Above all, it must be kept in mind that the same poverty which obliged the majority of the peasantry to earn, rather than harvest, the grain they ate also constrained them from buying an entire year’s supply at one fell swoop in the fall. For the land poor, subsistence was necessarily a process of continuous acquisition.158 That this pattern should have coincided with such irregular purchases of grain is a provocative comment about the relationship between money and exchange. It turns out, in fact, that the Ottobeuren peasantry disposed of surprisingly little money. In 1529 the monastery drew up a summary of the debts owed to it by its subjects. Given the size of the Abbot’s dominions, the monetary sum was quite moderate; some thousand households owed just under 1,900 gulden. Total collections, however, amounted to barely a tenth of this sum.159 Naturally the amortization rate of these debts is not the best indication of the size of peasant cash reserves, and may instead reflect the legendary tightfistedness of the Swabian Bauer.160 After all, a comparable proportion of the peasants’ 1529 grain debts also remained unpaid. Be that as it may, the details of peasant indebtedness provide two important indications that money was appreciably scarcer at Ottobeuren than might otherwise be expected. 157

158 159 160

See the discussion in Peter Spufford, Money and its Use in Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 382–7. For an anthropological perspective see Stuart M. Plattner, “Periodic Trade in Developing Areas without Markets” in Carol A. Smith, ed., Regional Analysis (2 vols., New York, 1976), Vol. I, pp. 81–5. The monastery ordinances envision the average purchaser buying only a fourteen-day supply of grain at a time. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289V, ff. 355v–356r [5 Aug. 1601]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 550 and KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 2. A later, but still illustrative example of this trait: in 1601 Balthas and Michael Knaus of Schlegelsberg were fined ten shillings for not paying off a debt of borrowed grain to the monastery “even though, as was later observed, they had the money with them at the time.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 21.

92


First, the very composition of peasant debt is highly suggestive. Why would the peasants be paying debts not only of pounds and gulden, but also of rye, oats, and spelt, not to mention iron, wood, and eggs? One possibility is that the debts derived from obligations in kind and were recorded that way to protect their value from inflation. This explanation is clearly inadequate, since the monks were perfectly able to keep track of price changes and convert obligations in kind accordingly. Indeed, both rents and debts of grain were routinely paid in money, and it was standard practice to establish for each accounting year an official cash equivalent for grain obligations known as the Anschlag.161 A more plausible explanation for the only partial monetization of peasant debts is that the economy of the villages was itself only partially monetized. This explanation is further supported by a second feature of peasant indebtedness, namely that, even when an obligation was incurred in specie, it was frequently repaid in decidedly non-monetary form by rich and poor alike. The reparations taxes imposed by the monastery after the Peasants’ War of 1525 provide a perfect illustration of this pattern. Each householder was assessed a sum ranging from three quarters to ten gulden, and although most of the payments seem to have been made in cash, a great many of them were not. In the village of Hawangen, Simon Graus paid off some of his assessment by helping to collect the tithe. Hans Baur was credited 25 kreuzer for threshing work, Jacob Gaisser the same amount for hunting. Hans Sauter gave up a calf in exchange for a half-gulden reduction of his tax bill; the wealthy village miller received two gulden for a cow.162 Other settlements saw arrangements of a different sort. The seven and a half gulden charge imposed on rich Ulrich Schlichting of Frechenrieden was paid by a combination of cash, flax, and mowing work. Jerg Lang of Niederrieden settled 45 kreuzer of his bill by giving up some of his land.163 In the hamlets a truly dizzying range of goods was exchanged against the cash obligations, including wood, cattle, lard, coal, cloth, salt, even plums and onions! As in the villages, these in-kind payers included the unambiguously prosperous. Oswald Zettler, the richest man in Guggenberg, paid the first third of his assessment with cash, oats, and cloth.164 161

162

163

A clear illustration of the flexibility of this system may be found in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 38, an account for various debts since 1604 collected in 1613. For rye, the Anschlag was 48 kr. per viertel for debts incurred in 1609, 53 kr. for 1610, 56 for 1611, 54 for 1612, and 60 for 1613. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 2, ff. 17v–18v. A reliable estimate of the overall proportion of the tax paid in kind is not possible. The assessments were supposed to be paid in three installments, but only the first installment has been recorded in any significant number of cases. Even then the entries are not without ambiguity. Where a payment has been recorded without mention of an in-kind exchange, it may seem safe to assume that the assessment was settled in cash. That the scribe should in some cases (e.g. f. 54r) have felt the need to specify ‘one gulden paid in money’ indicates that this may not always have been the case. 164 Ibid., ff. 43r, 46v–61r. Ibid., ff. 32r, 34r.


93

It could of course be argued that the frequency of in-kind payments was in this case the temporary result of post-Peasants’ War devastation, but this suspicion is laid to rest by the persistence of the pattern long after 1525. Consider, for example, the following extract from the debt book of 1543 for a wealthy Hof tenant165 from the village of Benningen: Jerg Knopff owes 22 fl. Erdschatz [; an] old [debt] – to pay four fl. annually paid 2 12 fl. by driving to Immenstadt with five horses two days after St. Cecilia’s Day166 Or this extract from the hamlet of Hof: Hans Hildtprandt: new [debt] 19 ß; also old [debt] 6 ß 1 h; also 7 ß Eegart-tithe paid 4 ß with eggs Quasimodo Geniti paid 3 ß 9 h with eggs on Pentecost paid 1 ß with eggs Sunday before St. John’s Day also 7 ß cash paid 4 batzen with a hen on the octave of the Feast of the Twelve Apostles paid 7 ß h [cash]167 A widow168 from the market town of Ottobeuren: Old Barbara Wißmuller: new [debt] £1 5 ß; also old [debt] 17 ß 6 h paid 4 ß with spinning five days after Reminiscere paid £1 [cash] three days after Oculi paid 3 ß with a hen Sunday before St. John’s Day paid 3 ß 6 h with haymaking before St. John’s Day paid 5 ß with haymaking . . .169 Again from the market town, this time one of the ten wealthiest burghers:170 Petter Stâhele: new [debt] £7 17 ß 9 h; old [debt] 12 ß 4 h; also very old [debt] £1 4 ß 8 h on account of Hans Widenman of Guggenberg paid £1 7 ß with 35 lbs. of meat Saturday after St. John’s Day, also 1 ß 6 h with a liver also £1 3 ß 7 h with 32 [lbs.] of meat in the vigil of SS. Peter and Paul’s Day also 1 ß 6 h with a liver also 1 ß 6 h with a liver on the feast of the Visitation of Mary also £3 15 ß with meat, liver and cutlets three days after St. Ulrich’s Day . . .171 165 166 167 168

169 170

171

Jerg Knopf was the tenant of a huge (83.75 jauchert) Hof yielding an annual grain rent of 8.5 malter in 1544. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29, f. 35r; KL Ottobeuren 27, f. 49v. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 409, f. 6r. Ibid., f. 62r. This man’s wealth is impossible to estimate, since the returns from Hof are missing in the 1546 tax register. Barbara Wißmuller is listed as a widow in the 1548 serfbook. StAA, KL 600, f. 9r. She cannot be identified with certainty in the 1546 tax register, but like most widows she probably was poor. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 409, f. 89v. Peter Stehelin’s 1546 tax assessment was 1 gulden, placing him in the top 7.1 percent of the 141 tax payers (institutions excluded) in the Markt Ottobeuren. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 44r–46v. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 409, f. 90v.

94


To these examples could be added many others, but the point should by now be clear. Money was a frequent, but nevertheless episodic presence in the economy of the peasantry. Taxonomically, then, sixteenth-century Ottobeuren proves to be extremely awkward. Too suffused with exchange for a natural or subsistence society, the economy of the peasantry at the same time does not conform to the rules of the neoclassical paradigm. The only way to resolve this paradox, I would argue, is to examine more closely how contemporaries understood exchange. The best place to begin is the Abbot’s council room in the early part of the next century. In the winter of 1622, the Abbot of Ottobeuren convened his advisors for a discussion on markets and prices. The year’s harvest had been deficient, and the usual problems of the ensuing grain shortage had been compounded by the currency devaluation then widespread throughout the Holy Roman Empire, resulting in a fearful hyperinflation.172 The poor of the monastery lands streamed to the Abbot’s granary, draining the stocks “and paying with bad little coins, all to the monastery’s great disadvantage.”173 Genuinely concerned to keep the poor supplied with grain, the Abbot was at the same time fearful of antagonizing the peasantry. He asked his advisors to make inquiries in the villages among the mayors and headmen about possible arrangements for grain deliveries. What the Abbot wanted was a way to secure from the hamlets and villages a supply for the market town and the rural poor, but in such a manner “so as to burden them [the peasantry] so lightly that they will have no cause to refuse.”174 The agreement ultimately reached in December of 1622 contains a series of revealing provisions. It had in November been decided that each village was to be responsible for feeding its own poor. Now the actual distribution process was spelled out in detail. In each village the grain surpluses of the wealthy Bauern were to be combined into a common stock. The poor were to be given grain one viertel at a time, the total never to exceed the immediate consumption requirements of their households. None of this was without cost. The recipients were expected to pay for their grain: “it shall also be written down which poor in the community do not pay in cash so that their property may be hypothecated to the Bauern until payment [of the bill].”175 The Markt Ottobeuren was to be supplied in a similar manner, the villages taking weekly turns selling the townspeople grain. 172

173 174

For southwest Germany the best discussion of the hyperinflation remains Gustav Schöttle, “Die große deutsche Geldkrise von 1620–23 und ihr Verlauf in Oberschwaben,” Württembergsiche Vierteljahrshefte für Landesgeschichte N.F. 30 (1921), pp. 36–57. There is an engrossing discussion of contemporary perceptions of the phenomenon in Fritz Redlich, Die deutsche Inflation des 17. Jahrhunderts in der zeitgenössischen Literatur: Die Kipper und Wipper. Forschungen zur internationalen Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 6 (Cologne and Vienna, 1972). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 598, f. 62r [12 Nov. 1622]. 175 Ibid., ff. 66r–v [16 and 19 Dec. 1622]. Ibid.


95

At first sight this arrangement appears utterly ordinary, even banal. With respect to the stipulated payment pattern, it may be wondered whether the Abbot had any other choice. His worries about unsettling the peasantry and the consultative nature of the agreement suggest that his subjects – or at least the Bauern – were in a powerful negotiating position. Still, we would do well to avoid taking for granted the fact that the Abbot’s position seems rational to us. As shall be seen, the monastery council room produced other abbatial decisions about prices and markets which are completely out of kilter with the modern understanding of these issues. It would be wrong to gloss over the unhesitating assumption in the 1622 deliberations that the deliveries of grain would have to be balanced by appropriate compensation for the peasantry. The minds which arrived at this arrangement were firmly rooted in a world of exchange; a tributelike extortion of grain from the peasantry was never even contemplated. Still more important, though at first sight equally unremarkable, was the compartmentalized approach to the problem. The poor were to stay where they belonged and each village was to assume the care of its own. Poor relief was almost always organized at the level of the parish in early modern Europe. In Germany the Imperial Diet at Lindau had declared in 1497 that each community should be responsible for the care of its own poor, a principle later codified in the Imperial Police Ordinance of 1530.176 The 1622 arrangement at Ottobeuren nevertheless merits our attention as a particular instance of the general conviction that the social order was best maintained by confining the person and activities of every individual to their natural space. This partitioned conception of creation was a basic legitimating mythos of what I have termed the ‘discrete society,’ and it powerfully shaped all discussion at Ottobeuren of the norms and nature of exchange. The Ottobeuren market ordinances are a particularly clear expression of this outlook. Article Three of Abbot Alexander’s 1601 promulgation ordains that “in order that all may have access to the same transactions, no one shall buy or sell anything – except for cows, cattle, and swine – until the market has been opened on penalty of the lordship.”177 The prohibition was made still more explicit in the case of linen thread, a prime article of commerce: Henceforth in the lordship of Ottobeuren, and as far as the laws of its villages, hamlets and other settlements run, at no time either within or without the market town of Ottobeuren shall any sort of thread be bought or sold, except at the customary annual and weekly markets as permitted by the ordinances of the market and after the flag has been raised on penalty for both buyer and seller of one pound heller to be paid to the lordship.178 176 177 178

Robert Jütte, Poverty and Deviance in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1994), p. 106. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289V, f. 352v: “Ottenbeürische Marckhtordnung” [5 Aug. 1601]. Ibid.

96


Exchange, in short, was only deemed licit when conducted at particular times and particular places. Even then, the two market ordinances which have survived – one from c. 1550 and another from 1601 – provide only a partial listing of the rules governing the economic life of the peasantry. As is clear from the criminal court papers, still more specific boundaries of acceptable exchange were drawn within the territorial borders of the Ottobeuren lands. The monastery peasants were required, for example, to grind their grain with the miller in their home villages.179 Above all, it was expected that anyone with goods to buy or sell would go first to a neighbor with the offer. Significantly, this expectation was shared by both overlord and peasant. It is hard to explain the prosecution of Caspar Schütz and Simon Seifridt of Attenhausen for refusing to buy meat from the local butcher in 1598,180 or of Jacob Mair of Attenhausen for refusing to sell a cow to his neighbor in 1601,181 unless the neighbors themselves had complained. Trade was thus to be conducted first within the individual settlement, then within the Abbot’s dominions, and only thereafter and with permission with an outsider. Spatio-temporal sequestration of commercial transactions was not, of course, an end in and of itself, but rather a means of ensuring the honesty and fairness of exchange. It was felt, for example, that the quality of merchandise could only be controlled if all transactions took place in public and under official oversight. Justice in exchange concerned not only the integrity of the object transacted, however, but also the nature of the transaction. Justice in transactions, as shall be seen, itself amounted to a particular relation in time and space. Like most sixteenth- and seventeenth-century European market ordinances, the Ottobeuren regulations reflect a particular concern with two kinds of injustice in exchange. The first was known as Aufkauf zum Wiederkauf, or the engrossing of large quantities of goods (grain in particular) for the purpose of export. Unproblematic in times of plenty, grain exports were seen as a serious threat to the poor in years of leaner harvests. Already by the middle of the sixteenth century, the monastery sought to mitigate the export danger by forbidding the peasantry to sell grain of any kind outside the monastery lands without the formal permission of the Abbot or his officials.182 By 1601 a further restriction, commonly known as the Einstandrecht, or parity right, had been introduced. 179 180

181

182

The widow of Bartlome Maÿer of Niederrieden was fined one pound in 1566 for having her grain ground by the miller in Heimertingen. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 3 (1566/7). “At the parish fair, after the Amman and the Vierer had inspected the wares of the [local] butcher and authorized him to distribute them, Caspar Schütz and Simon Seifridt in violation of the custom of the village bought their meat from the butcher from Riedt in Mindelheim – [fined] 14 shillings.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 20 (1598/9). “Jacob Mair butchered a cow . . . and did not want to give any of it to the neighbors who offered him money for it, but sold all of the meat in Memmingen – [fined] 1 £ heller.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 21, “Strafregister 1601/2.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289X, f. 386v: “Baudingbuch 1551.”


97

Even after the exporter had purchased his grain at the market, if approached by a local who had not yet had a chance to bid for the goods, “before he the buyer has loaded up the grain, the buyer shall sell the other [person] at the [same] price at which he the buyer bought it, as much of the purchased grain as the other [person] requires and requests for the needs of his household for about fourteen days, on penalty of one pound heller for any buyer who shall refuse.”183 The second great villainy envisioned by the market ordinances was Fürkauf, or forestalling. The essence of this offense was the buying up of goods (again, usually grain) which would otherwise have been sold at the market before the market had officially been opened. What worried the authorities was that the parasitical forestaller would then go on to extort a higher price from buyers at market day. Forestalling was thus strictly forbidden, particularly in the twenty-four hour period immediately preceding the opening of the market.184 The object of the market ordinances was thus to guarantee that the needs of the local community would be met affordably. There was no desire to bar outright either the export of goods or the fluctuation of prices, which were understood to reflect – and properly so – the interplay of supply and demand. It was, however, a firmly held conviction that the ability of the individual settlement and of the monastery lands as a whole to support themselves should not be compromised by the demands of outsiders. As for prices, it was felt that the only fair determination of the balance of supply and demand emerged from the face-to-face encounter of producer and consumer. The attenuation of this encounter through the interposition of a speculating middleman would only deform the relation. Justice in exchange, in other words, was best achieved through temporally instantaneous transactions which gave precedence to the needs of the spatially immediate. These conditions were most likely to be realized, it was felt, when exchange was confined to officially sanctioned times and places. Even then, the incommensurability of sixteenth- and twenty-first-century exchange is not exhausted by considerations of the formation and meaning of prices. Equally important is the relationship between prices and rural exchange in general. For it is not just that as a quantitative measure, a price quotation is only a crude representation of the balance between resources and requirements. It is also that as signs of one-way monetary transactions, prices stand for only one of the forms of rural exchange. There is no way precisely to measure the prevalence of barter and other non-monetary forms of exchange in the Ottobeuren rural economy, but we may be sure that they were very common. The most obvious evidence has already been discussed above: the debts owed by the peasantry to the monastery 183

Ibid., Document 289V, ff. 355v–356r [5 Aug. 1601].

184

Ibid., ff. 354r–355v.

98


were often recorded not in cash but in kind, and even cash obligations were often repaid in non-monetary forms. Among the peasantry transactions of any kind rarely leave traces in the surviving documentation, but when they were illegal or disputed the particulars may show up in the criminal court papers. These documents provide further evidence of the frequency of barter in the Abbot’s dominions. Thus one Steffa Steudlin of Wolfertschwenden was fined £7 in 1577 for engaging in prohibited trade with a vagabond. Steudlin had carried the man out of the monastery lands in his cart in exchange for some coins and a (purloined) bed cloth.185 Similarly, Enderlin Müller of Dennenberg was sued by his neighbor Jerg Steffa for a debt of borrowed oats in 1574. He defended himself with the argument that he had already repaid his creditor with wood.186 In some cases barter arrangements were actually institutionalized in the villages (which is why we know of their existence). In 1545, for example, the village community of Egg drew up a contract with the local blacksmith.187 Under the terms of the agreement, the smith was required to do all of his work – sheathing cart wheels and sled runners, shoeing horses, etc. – for the villagers without pay and to maintain a grindstone for the use of all. In exchange, all of the Bauern were annually obliged to do one day’s work for the smith (cutting and delivering wood or ploughing his fields) and nineteen specified Bauern were together required to supply him with just under sixteen malter of rye each year. Those who required the smith’s services had to provide him with the iron themselves. Each time the smith sheathed all of the wheels on a wagon, the owner was to give him a meal. Finally, once a year, on St. Steven’s Day (3 August), the smith was entitled to go to the inn and eat and drink as much as he liked at the village community’s expense. Peculiar as this arrangement may seem, it was not at all unusual in a particular series of trades – blacksmiths, millers, bakers, and bathhouse keepers – whose activities were deemed vital to the local community.188 Those who pursued these trades were accorded special rights known as Ehehaften, which required the village community to maintain their workplaces, supply them with food and raw materials, and patronize no other tradesman in exchange for costless or nearly costless provision of the relevant service. 185 186 187 188

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 8 (1577). Ibid., Heft 6 (1574), Ottobeuren Pfarr und Markt. Details in Peter Blickle, “Ortsgeschichte von Egg an der Günz,” Memminger Geschichtsblätter (1971), pp. 5–118, at pp. 63–4. See for example the contract drawn up between the village community and blacksmith of Ungerhausen on 14 March 1619. The smith was required to maintain a grindstone, to shoe “barefooted” horses even on feast days and to do such other smith work as the peasants required. In exchange the Bauern were obliged each year to do one half-day’s ploughing for the smith (but were also then entitled to receive a meal from him), and to give him two cart rides, one to the fields and one to the woods. They were also to give him two viertel of rye for each horse that he shoed, two-year-old horses excepted. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 907, ff. 236r–v.


99

Milled (consumed, paid as wages, etc.) Officials Parish priests Sown

Gifts Alms

Sold

Figure 2.7 Rye disbursements of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1586/7 Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 224, Heft 1

Naturally the prevalence of non-monetary exchanges was at least in part the simple result of poverty, but we have already seen that this is a partial explanation at best. Even the wealthiest peasants commonly discharged cash obligations with payments of goods. It turns out, in fact, that the monastery itself was constantly engaged in what can only be described as barter. Almost everyone who worked for the monks, from casual day laborers to contracted artisans to the parish priests and chancellery officials, were paid at least in part in grain.189 Indeed, it is clear from Figure 2.7 that actual sales of rye for cash represented only a fraction (16.4 percent) of the total volume of rye disbursed by the monastery in 1586. The predominance of moneyless exchanges is the most likely explanation for a curious anomaly mentioned above: the monastery always had grain on hand and its subjects were in constant need of it, yet actual sales from the monastic granary were markedly discontinuous. The evidence presented here suggests that many of these gaps must have been filled by barter. Barter was thus by no means the preserve of the poor and the primitive, but pervaded rural society at all levels of power and affluence. Far from reflecting an inability to function with money, it is argued here, barter was often a positive choice. Two characteristics of barter made it particularly appealing at sixteenthcentury Ottobeuren. First, it represented a hedge against inflation. The craftsman who was paid in grain had less to fear from fluctuations in food prices, and in times of particular instability we actually find day laborers insisting on payment in grain.190 Second, barter is a more direct form of exchange. The 189 190

See the payments in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 1 (1527/8 and 1528/9) and KL Ottobeuren 224, Heft 1 (1586/7). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 225, f. 33r. “Note that because this year [1621/2] everything [was] very expensive, one had to give each tithe servant two viertel of rye.”

100


weaver who sold the fruits of his labor for cash was then obliged to seek out a third party from whom to purchase his sustenance.191 A simultaneous transfer of cloth for grain or bread unmediated by other transactions with other people quite possibly in other places was more in keeping with the premium placed on spatially compartmentalized and temporally instantaneous exchange. Barter was an efficient vehicle, in other words, for the establishment of personal exchange partnerships and local patron–client relations.192 That barter transactions within the Ottobeuren villages often took on a personal character did not preclude the possibility that they also had an exploitative dimension. This was in fact true of all forms of rural exchange. The pronounced disparity between the comfortable Bauern and the land-poor Seldner ensured that bargaining took place on anything but an even playing field. This did not mean that the Bauern sought to drive their poorer neighbors from the village. On the contrary, the mass of the cottagers represented a useful pool from which to hire servants, cowherds, and short-term reapers and threshers at harvest time. It must be emphasized, however, that personal exchanges, whether based on cash sale, barter, or both, very often more closely resembled patron–client relations than the unconstrained haggling of equals. This ruthless paternalism which characterized so many exchange relations among the peasantry is perhaps most nakedly expressed in a 1607 contract from the hamlet of Eggesried. In that year a certain Jacob Neher acquired from the village community a lot on which to build a house, the lot previously having belonged to one Ulrich Welfle. Neher was not required to pay any money for the lot, but there was a catch: The village community grants . . . [the lot] out of grace . . . in such a manner that Neher henceforth shall work for the members of the village community for the appropriate wage. If, however, the said Neher should be parted from his current wife by death, she shall not [re]marry without the [fore]knowledge and assent [belieben] of the community. In the event that the said house in the short or long term should be removed, the right to build a[nother] house shall belong to Ulrich Welfle and his heirs; the land [itself] shall belong to the village community . . .193 Jacob and his wife had gained a place to build a home in exchange for his labor and her right to remarry. Jacob was to be paid for his work, but he was hardly free to go elsewhere in search of a higher wage. The couple had not gained 191

192 193

The inconvenience of having to go outside the village to use money is an important reason for the persistent unwillingness to sell food for cash among the Lhomi of northeastern Nepal. Caroline Humphrey, “Barter and Economic Disintegration,” Man (N. S.) 20 (1985), pp. 48–72, esp. p. 62, p. 68 n. 7, and p. 70 n. 17. Cf. R. H. Barnes and Ruth Barnes, “Barter and Money in an Indonesian Village Economy,” Man (N. S.) 24 (1989), pp. 399–418, esp. p. 412. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 903, f. 294 [27 Jan. 1607].


101

permanent title to any land at all; they had in effect become the bond-servants of the Eggesried village community. Despite the force of an ethos of claustration and the prevalence of nonmonetary exchange, the Ottobeuren villages were not completely immune to the lure of the Memmingen market. Illegal sales by the Abbot’s subjects outside the monastery lands were rare in the 1540s and still infrequent in the 1580s.194 Even within the stringent requirements imposed by law and custom, however, trading visits to the city by monastery peasants were frequent enough that urban prices left an unmistakable imprint on their rural counterparts. Still the burghers and city councilors chafed at the norms of exchange at Ottobeuren. The compartmentalization of the monastery villages clashed with their own commercial ambitions, and they therefore undertook to destroy it. On the face of it, the Memmingen city council shared the same understanding of exchange as the Abbot of Ottobeuren. The laws of the city required that all buying and selling be confined to the municipal marketplace and take place only on officially sanctioned market days. Those who wished to buy up grain for purposes of export were barred from purchasing before two o’clock in the afternoon and were not allowed to buy more than seven malter per week. The exporters’ activities were further constrained by the parity rights of the citizenry; any burgher had the right to repurchase half of the exporter’s acquisitions at the same price the exporter himself had paid. Finally, grain forestalling was if anything more strictly forbidden in the city than it was in the monastery lands. No grain purchased on the Memmingen market could be resold there within six months of the original purchase.195 Like the Abbot and his subjects, then, the city council and citizenry of Memmingen strove to secure for themselves a position of precedence in the marketplace. Unlike the monastery villages, however, Memmingen did not have a sufficient food supply of its own. The city thus found itself in the position of seeking privileged access to goods which were produced by the very outsiders whose needs it sought to subordinate to its own. Compounding the dilemma was that no one in Memmingen was content for the urban market to attract only enough grain for the needs of the city itself. Already by the mid-fifteenth century, Memmingen had become a regional marketing center for the trans-shipment of grain from Bavaria and northern Swabia to Switzerland and the Allgäu. As a source of commercial profits on the one hand and export toll revenues on the other, the long-distance grain trade had the active 194

195

There are only five such offenses among a total of several hundred others recorded in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-I, Heft 1 (1546) and 2 (1548). The registers for 1580/1 (Heft 11) and 1582/3 (Heft 12) together record a total of four offenses of this kind. Kiessling, Die Stadt und ihr Land, pp. 448–55.

102


support of both the wealthier burghers and the city council.196 Memmingen’s appetite for the grain of others and the problems of procurement were thus truly immense. The solution attempted, as in all early modern German cities,197 was the imposition of what amounted to a colonial relationship on the surrounding countryside. The weapon of choice was a legal privilege known as the Bannmeilenrecht, or ban-mile right,198 in virtue of which the city unilaterally declared a commercial exclusion zone in a two-mile radius around its walls. Inside the circuit, the peasantry was forbidden to engage in a series of trades deemed important for the employment of the urban citizenry. In addition, the rural inhabitants of the exclusion zone were forbidden to buy or sell any goods in any place other than the Memmingen market. These prohibitions applied not only to those peasants who were the legal subjects of the city, but also to those ruled by other sovereign powers, such as the Abbot of Ottobeuren, the Bishop of Augsburg, or the Fugger dukes.199 A variety of means was employed to enforce compliance with the rules of the exclusion zone. Peasants who made purchases elsewhere might be fined, suffer confiscation of their goods, or be banned from the Memmingen market. Those who engaged in prohibited trades were not allowed to sell their wares in the city and might suffer other forms of harassment up to and including imprisonment. The city bakers developed a more insidious mechanism. They loaned out money in neighboring villages and then used the debt to compel the peasants to purchase bread from them alone. Still other burghers resorted to similar means to extract grain at prices disadvantageous to the peasants. The city council disapproved of these tactics but stopped short of forbidding them, preferring that the peasants be exploited by city residents rather than by someone else.200 The council was also active at higher levels to preserve the integrity of the exclusion zone, lobbying the Emperor himself against the granting of market privileges to potential rivals. In 1600 the Abbot of Ottobeuren petitioned Emperor Rudolf II for a formal renewal of the market privileges granted to the town of Ottobeuren in 1498. Although it had not objected to the earlier grant, the Memmingen city council now issued a formal protest, complete with a list of reasons for Ottobeuren’s unsuitability as a market. The protest was ultimately in vain, and the Ottobeuren 196 197

198

199 200

Ibid., pp. 459–60. For a general introduction see Günther Franz, “Die Geschichte des deutschen Landwarenhandels” in Günther Franz et al., eds., Der deutsche Landwarenhandel (Hanover, 1960), esp. pp. 17–36. The coercive character of economic relations between town and country in the Middle Ages has long been recognized by historians. See Winfried Küchler, Das Bannmeilenrecht, Marburger Ostforschung, Band 24 (Würzburg, 1964), esp. pp. 20–3. Kiessling, Die Stadt und ihr Land, pp. 448–55, 481–91. Ibid., also pp. 462, 507–10, 517–18.


103

privileges were reconfirmed. The details of the effort, however, cast an interesting light on the city’s motivations. Professing concern for the Ottobeuren peasantry, the city council declared that it was “notorious and common knowledge that the subjects of the monastery are endowed and blessed with neither enough cattle, nor grain, nor other victuals or goods to justify the establishment of a single annual market, not to mention two in addition to a weekly market.” This claim was transparently specious, since the monastery lands did seem to produce enough surplus for the peasants to visit the Memmingen market. Indeed, the council continued piously, “it would be much more useful to them to patronize the markets of our own and neighboring cities in order that they might . . . at the same time in one trip satisfy their purchasing needs.”201 The council also alleged that like other rural markets, the town of Ottobeuren was more susceptible to forestalling and other “improper contracts” because it had no market and inspection ordinances, “and is also not equipped with the people to establish ordinances of this sort and administer them in a public place, since it [the town] is not even located on the highway but in fact lies out of the way in solitudine.” This charge was a bold-faced lie; we have seen above that exchange in the monastery lands was already regulated by ordinance in the middle of the sixteenth century. Ironically, in fact, many of the Ottobeuren regulations were copied directly from Memmingen. For example, Abbot Caspar’s 1549 ordinance for innkeepers, butchers, and bakers proclaims that the market overseers “shall together and with each other diligently carry out the inspection of slaughtered and butchered cattle before it [the meat] is distributed, [and] also [the inspection] of the bread as soon as it comes out of the oven, and to the best of their wisdom and knowledge declare its value in accordance with the ordinances in Memmingen . . .”202 Ultimately, however, the Memmingen city council revealed the real reason for its opposition to the Ottobeuren market privileges: fear of competition. Market privileges, the council insisted, belonged more properly to the city than to its neighboring villages and hamlets, “so that the trade and industry of the burghers is not drawn out of the city (to the great disadvantage and damage to the same) and into the villages, lest on account of a village a city should be ruined.”203 The essence of Memmingen’s opposition to the Ottobeuren market privileges is thus perfectly clear. The city wanted a maximum number of sellers to confront a minimum number of buyers on the Memmingen market and be unable to go elsewhere in search of a better price. The appeal of the urban market was to be 201 202 203

StadtA MM A. Reichsstadt 40/1. Burgermeister and Rat of Memmingen to Emperor Rudolf II [7 Aug. 1600]. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289X, ff. 395v: “Ordinance and Commandment regarding Innkeepers, Butchers and Bakers proclaimed Anno 1549.” StadtA MM A. Reichsstadt [bisher Stadtarchiv] 40/1.

104


Memmingen Günz Hawangen

Niederdorf

Frechenrieden

Legend: r2 coefficients 0.600 – 1.000 0.300 – 0.600 0.000 – 0.300

Figure 2.8 Price correlations in the Ottobeuren lands, 1569–96 Sources: See Figures 2.4 and 2.5

further bolstered by discouraging the peasants from producing for themselves those industrial goods they would otherwise have to purchase in the city. The goal, in other words, was an economically undiversified countryside in enforced dependence on the Memmingen market. The efforts of the merchants and city councilors of Memmingen were not without a certain measure of success. Figure 2.8 demonstrates that in most Ottobeuren villages, rye prices were strongly correlated with Memmingen prices. The city’s influence should not be overrated, though. Had the Bannmeilenrecht been truly effective, prices would have moved together throughout the exclusion zone, and this was not the case. Although it is clear from Figure 2.8 that the villages were together drawn towards the city, it is equally clear that the pull was not strong enough to draw them closer to each other. The force of the urban market was centripetal without being integrative. How is Memmingen’s failure to break down the boundaries of rural commerce to be explained? We ought to begin by questioning the widespread image of the countryside as the pliant object of bourgeois interests, passively yielding to the solvent force of the urban economy. The evidence of lordly ordinance and peasant custom has shown that both the Abbot of Ottobeuren and his subjects regarded the compartmentalization of exchange as a positive good. Their joint resolve to maintain the economic isolation of the villages was stronger than any pressure the city could exert.


105

More importantly, the overall objective of this chapter has been to document the deep resonance between this ethos of commercial claustration and peasant constructions of the rural world as a whole. The centrality of honor in the villages, the ferocity with which rural courts punished offenders not known in the community, the preference of personal retribution over official arbitration in disputes – all of these were as closely linked to the special status of face-to-face relations as was the distaste for the shadowy activities of the forestaller. The same force of local solidarity which required that exchange be conducted with neighbors before others was equally at work in the jealous efforts of the Ottobeuren townspeople to bar the villagers from the privileges of the Bürgerrecht. The attempts to minimize trading connections across the frontiers of the monastery lands were no more an expression of the strict demarcation of insiders from outsiders than peasant traditions of enmity and feud, or the laws discouraging the immigration, marrying-in, and even sheltering of persons born outside the monastery lands. The insistence on the inviolability of the house and the partibility of the Hof reflected an ideal of autonomy whose commercial counterpart was the persistent price discrepancy of fungible goods in neighboring settlements.204 On both planes, social and commercial, that which is direct, proximate, native, and encapsulated is preferred to that which is mediated, distant, foreign, and permeable. The boundary-building habit of mind is the same. But it is not enough to refer only to norms and ideals. This resected economy in which every lordship, village, and household was an island had a material basis as well: partible inheritance. The relationship was not a necessary one, and it would also be wrong to regard the commercial norms discussed above as mere extrusions of land transmission practices. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that partible inheritance, by allowing the replacement of one generation by another to be mediated by the redistribution of land, enabled the most fundamental process of rural society to unfold without resort to money. That coin was extraneous to the social reproduction of the peasantry clarifies a great deal. It accounts for the virtually moneyless character of the rural economy. It helps to explain the minimal success of Memmingen’s efforts to colonize its hinterland. But it also highlights an axis of future social change, for partible 204

The persistence of these discrepancies is closely allied to size of the exchange communities in question. Game theoretic modeling of exchanges among small groups of agents, at least some of whom can influence the ratios at which commodities are traded, predicts that “[v]irtually any set of relative prices could emerge. Moreover, there is no reason why different agents should not be able to exchange the same commodities, fetching different exchange ratios with other commodities. In other words, there is no need for the emergence of prices in the traditional sense, a unique set of exchange ratios between commodities, prevailing throughout the system.” (Luca Anderlini and Hamid Sabourian, “Some Notes on the Economics of Barter, Money and Credit” in Caroline Humphrey and Steven Hugh-Jones, eds., Barter, Exchange and Value – An Anthropological Approach (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 75–106, at p. 99. Emphasis mine).

106


inheritance had other ramifications, above all in the realm of demography. Since a parent could easily create an economic basis for the independence of his children by subdividing the ancestral holding, partibility allowed for the rapid multiplication of new households.205 In the long run, this population growth put considerable pressure on the productive resources of the countryside, and by extension on traditional customs of inheritance. Any resultant changes in the inner logic of the peasant household would be certain to have repercussions on the myriad boundaries which constituted the late medieval rural world. 205

Lutz Berkner, “Peasant Household Organization and Demographic Change in Lower Saxony (1689–1766)” in Ronald D. Lee, ed., Population Patterns in the Past (New York, 1977), pp. 53–70.

3. A crisis of numbers? (c. 1560–c. 1630)

Anna Langheunz of Reuthen had a problem: her husband, Hans Braun, was a bad householder. It wasn’t that he didn’t try; Hans was always running off to wheel and deal in other lordships. But horse-trading, his chosen field of endeavor, was a notoriously risky business,1 and Hans just wasn’t good at it. There was also his drinking. Like many peasants, Hans was a bit overfond of the tavern, and any coins gained in his horse-trading were all too often drained away over all too many tankards. By 1555 the situation was critical. Anna and the children were living in destitution, and the Abbot was moved to intervene. Hans was arrested and clapped into prison. The usual drama then ensued. Anna and friends of the family appealed for mercy, Hans promised to reform, and was pardoned and released. Upon release, he solemnly swore not to cause any further trouble, and in particular, “for the rest of my life, neither to live or stay or flee anywhere outside the lands of the monastery of Ottobeuren . . . Also shall and will I completely avoid taverns [both] inside and outside of the lordship, [and I] will give up horse-trading altogether.” Four of Hans’ friends and neighbors also swore to bring Hans to jail themselves or to pay a fine of 20 gulden if he ever broke his oath.2 He did. It must at first have seemed like a godsend, the inheritance from relatives in far-away Speyer. Unfortunately, Hans had a falling-out with his coheirs. The argument degenerated into a fistfight, and in the fall of 1558 Anna’s husband was incarcerated again. Released at the intercession of his wife and 1

2

Because they often sold on credit outside the monastery lands, horse-traders were particularly vulnerable to problems of non-payment. See StAA, KL Ottobeuren 918, f. 69r [14 Oct. 1580], whereby a Hawangen peasant empowers a Memmmingen burgher to collect an unpaid debt of 21.5 fl. for a horse sold to a “foreigner,” and KL Ottobeuren 907, f. 211v [24 Dec. 1618], by which three Ottobeuren peasants appoint an emissary to collect an outstanding debt of 36 fl. for horses sold in Bregenz in 1615. Similarly KL Ottobeuren 919, ff. 122r–v and 127v–128r [31 Oct. and 14 Nov. 1680], KL Ottobeuren 921, ff. 177r–v [17 May 1696] and 203v–204r [6 Sep. 1696], KL Ottobeuren 922, f. 43r [9 May 1698]. More generally, see Ludwig Scheller, Pferdehändler aus dem Allgäu: von der Nordsee bis zum Mittelmeer (Kempten, 1976). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 293O, ff. 647v–651v [28 Jan. 1555]. 107

108


an additional fine of 10 gulden, Hans again promised to stay out of trouble3 and again couldn’t keep his promise. The old vices of ill-advised trading and mismanagement of the household’s resources landed him back in jail in the summer of 1562, and for a third time Anna found herself pleading for her husband’s release. In this she succeeded, but by now the Abbot had decided that drastic measures were needed. Hans’ Urfehde oath spelled out the terms: Henceforth, I will under no circumstances engage of my own accord in any trades, sales, or purchases, large or small, unless specially permitted by the Vogt and the officially appointed guardians of myself, my wife, and my children. I will also conduct myself humbly, peacefully, and in all moderation [aller gebür nach] with my wife, my children, and all others.4 The two guardians now assumed fiscal control of the household; Anna’s husband had been unmanned. Four years later he left her a widow.5 At first sight, the foregoing episode is simply a variation on a theme encountered in the previous chapter, i.e. the vulnerability of peasant women and their children to the managerial incompetence of male householders. But even if Hans Braun cannot be said to have played his cards very well, we must also in all fairness consider the hand he was dealt. Hans and Anna lived in Reuthen, a hamlet previously encountered as an example of the fragmentation of landholding caused by partible inheritance. Hans held one of the two smallest of these fragments. It is not possible to calculate the physical area of his property, but a tithe list from the year 1584 (a year of average harvest quality) indicates that the holding yielded 4.12 malter (≈ 9 hectoliters) of grain.6 Even notwithstanding the tithe obligation, four and one-tenth of a malter was only enough to feed two adults and one child for a year. Hans and Anna had seven children, the largest brood in the hamlet. As if these numbers were not bad enough, the later 1550s saw a general deterioration of grain production in Reuthen. The harvest of 1561, the last before Hans’ final arrest and declaration of incompetence, was the worst in eighty-five years (see Figure 3.1). The land simply did not yield enough to feed the family. Others may have been shrewder, luckier, or better able to resist the temptation of drink, but it is hard not to sympathize with Hans Braun’s desperation, and it is small wonder that he was driven to gamble on the horses. To shift our discussion from the rules governing peasant society to the resources which sustained (or in Hans and Anna’s case failed to sustain) it is to enter the lists of a venerable debate about the basic economic stability of early modern Europe. Thirty years or so ago, a scholarly consensus emerged that something had gone seriously wrong with the economy of Western Europe 3 4 5 6

Ibid., Document 293Q, ff. 656r–659v [20 Oct. 1558]. Ibid., Document 293R, ff. 659v–662r [15 July 1562]. Cf. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 688-I, Heft 1 (f. 19r), Heft 2 (f. 26r), Heft 3 (f. 25v), and Heft 4 (f. 8v). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 31, f. 68v.

A crisis of numbers? (c. 1560–c. 1630)

109

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 1540

1550

1560

1570

1580

1590

1600

1610

1620

1630

Figure 3.1 Tithe receipts (malter) in Reuthen, 1544–1629 Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 34–36, 40

by the beginning of the seventeenth century. Debate persisted on many aspects of this crisis: the role of precious metal imports from the Americas, the repercussions in Eastern Europe and on European trade patterns with the rest of the world. Even the chronology of the economic crisis and its root causes was a matter of considerable controversy. On one issue, however, there was general agreement: whereas the West European economy grew both in size and in sophistication during the sixteenth century, this performance was not sustained in the following century. The forces of growth were stopped short by the structural limitations of early modern society, and most of the continent settled into a hundred years of stagnation if not outright depression. Not until the later eighteenth or even the nineteenth century, it was argued, would the economy transcend the limits of the Middle Ages.7 It was admittedly somewhat difficult to make meaningful use of terms like “growth,” “stagnation,” and “depression” for the pre-industrial and prestatistical economy of early modern Europe. There were no indices of physical output, of household income, or of any of the other kinds of information economists use to analyze the material well-being of the modern world. In the absence of figures of this sort, historians were forced to resort to proxy measurements. In well-documented regions of the early modern economy, such as the urban sector or international trade, customs or toll records could be used to provide a fairly reliable indication of overall trends. But in the rural sector, 7

See Introduction, note 2.

110


where the vast majority of the population lived, where most of the value of the economy was produced, and where any economic crisis of general significance would therefore have had to begin, the statistical picture was (and still is) much bleaker. In general, historians came to rely on two variables to provide an indirect measurement of long-term trends in the rural economy: population and grain prices. The rationale behind the use of these two proxies (aside from the fact that little else is available) was as follows: an expanding economy can feed and employ more people, while higher grain prices reflect greater demand for agricultural products and therefore increased rural incomes. Thus, rising grain prices and above all a growing population were seen as signs of a healthy rural economy whereas the reversal of these two trends was felt to indicate economic depression.8 There is a great deal of common-sense plausibility to this scenario, which became the standard model for the economies of both medieval and early modern Europe. For many years, the most popular representation for the early modern economy was a demographically determined model where material well-being is a function of population density. The essence of the model was Thomas Malthus’ famous postulate that a growing population tends to outstrip its food supply. On the basis of a series of very influential French studies9 and buttressed by investigations in other parts of Europe,10 historians advanced a starkly simple explanation for the apparent economic slowdown at the end of the sixteenth century: the continent – at least, most of it – was overpopulated and had reached a state of permanent near-starvation. The root cause of the problem, it was argued, was the miserably low level of agricultural productivity. The land had to be worked by hand or with the use of undersized draught animals, and against the vagaries of the weather and the ravages of agricultural pests there was no defense save prayer. Moreover, given the short supply of natural fertilizers and the absence of artificial ones, the peasant was obliged to leave fallow as much as a third of his arable land every 8

9

10

The oscillating relation between population, food supply, and grain prices was first proposed by Wilhelm Abel. His landmark 1935 work is available in English as Agricultural Fluctuations in Europe from the Thirteenth to the Twentieth Centuries, trans. Olive Ordish (London, 1980). Fundamental are Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, trans. Siân Reynolds (2 vols. New York, 1972; orig. pub. 1949); Pierre Goubert, Beauvais et le Beauvaisis de 1600 a` 1730 (Paris, 1960); Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie, Les paysans de Languedoc (Paris, 1966); and Jean Jacquart, La crise rurale en Iˆle-de-France 1550–1670 (Paris, 1974). For England see summaries in D. M. Palliser, “Tawney’s Century: Brave New World or Malthusian Trap?” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 35 (1982), pp. 339–53 and Roger Schofield, “The Impact of Scarcity and Plenty on Population Change in England, 1541–1871,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 14, 2 (1983), pp. 265–91. For Germany see Wilhelm Abel, Massenarmut und Hungerkrisen im vorindustriellen Europa (Hamburg, 1974) and David Sabean, “German Agrarian Institutions at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century: Upper Swabia as an Example” in Janos Bak, ed, The German Peasant War of 1525 (London, 1976), pp. 76–88.


111

year or risk exhaustion of the soil. Even then, the seventeenth-century peasant managed to harvest only a risible multiple of the seed sown. As a result, peasant farming produced a decidedly modest food supply capable of feeding only a minimal non-agricultural population in good years and not even the peasants themselves in unhappy ones.11 As long as agricultural productivity remained stalled at such low levels, so the theory went, there was no way out of the Malthusian impasse. The technical stagnation of European agriculture was thus held to have created a biological ceiling, beyond which additional mouths simply could not be fed. At the end of the fifteenth and at the beginning of the sixteenth century, this limit was merely a theoretical concern. The population had only recently begun to recover from the demographic disasters of the later Middle Ages, and additions to the ranks of the peasantry were absorbed without difficulty. Abandoned lands were reoccupied, new lands were cleared and put under the plough, the food supply thus kept pace with population increases and the economy as a whole was free to grow and diversify. By the middle of the sixteenth century these earlier favorable conditions no longer obtained. After a century of demographic growth, the rural world was now full. Significant extension of the arable was no longer possible, with the result that the food supply had effectively been capped. Further population growth was now a positive liability, driving up food prices, eroding the standard of living, and planing away any remaining safety margin for the years of leaner harvests. Obviously, this imbalance between population and food supply could not continue to deteriorate indefinitely. On the demographic model, a breaking point was reached in most of Europe by the middle of the sixteenth century when two mechanisms came into play to force population growth to a halt. Following Malthus, these mechanisms were conventionally referred to as the positive and preventative checks.12 The preventative check is most succinctly described as the forestalling of excessive population growth through the control of nuptiality. Effective methods of artificial contraception were not available to early modern Europeans. Accordingly, manipulation of the celibacy rate and the age at first marriage became the contraceptive weapon par excellence of the ancien régime in Europe. Proponents of the demographic model ground their interpretation in the synchrony between a long-term increase in the cost of living over the period 11

12

B. H. Slicher van Bath, The Agrarian History of Western Europe AD 500–1850, trans. Olive Ordish (London, 1963) has been extremely influential, particularly with respect to yield ratios in arable farming. The concept of productive limits is stressed in Joseph Goy and Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie, eds. Les fluctuations du produit de la dˆıme (Paris, 1972). Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (repr. London, 1982). This is a reprint of the seventh (1872) edition of the essay; the positive and preventative checks are outlined in Book I, Chapter 2.

112


1480–1620 and the simultaneous multiplication of evidence for the preventative check all over Western Europe. The proportion of the population ever marrying declined while those who married did so at later and later ages. Thus, even in the absence of fertility reduction within marriage, the overall fertility rate declined dramatically to the point where an equilibrium of zero population growth was reached.13 In spite of these adjustments to fertility, however, the level at which the population stabilized was still dangerously close to the sustainable maximum. This brought in the second of Malthus’ mechanisms, the positive check or increased mortality. Malthus himself classed among the various positive checks everything from “unwholesome occupations, exposure to the seasons and bad nursing of children” to “the whole train of common diseases” and epidemics, wars, plague, and famine, including “excesses of all kinds” for good measure. Modern scholars concentrated on a select few of Malthus’ causes: plague and above all famine. Powerful support for the notion that European agriculture was only barely able to meet the needs of the population was provided by the phenomenon of subsistence crises, which multiplied in frequency throughout Europe as the sixteenth century drew to a close. A subsistence crisis is defined by a sudden increase in the price of grain, often to two, three, or even four times the normal level either due to the failure of the harvest or more commonly as a result of consecutive harvest failures. The surge in prices was usually accompanied by a dramatic increase in mortality and by a concomitant collapse in the conception of new infants. All in all, a subsistence crisis could easily scythe away 10 to 20 percent of the population of an affected community while impeding subsequent demographic recovery through its deleterious effects on the birth rate.14 It is not hard to see how repeated subsistence crises – and it is still felt that most villages in Europe experienced an ordeal of this sort every twenty to thirty years in the century after 1560 – could result in demographic stagnation if 13

14

See the seminal work by John Hajnal, “European Marriage Patterns in Perspective” in D. V. Glass and D. E. J. Eversley, eds, Population in History: Essays in Historical Demography (Chicago, 1965), pp. 101–43. For a recent general overview see Michael W. Flinn, The European Demographic System 1500–1820 (Baltimore, 1981), esp. pp. 19–28. The pioneering article is Jean Meuvret’s “Les crises de subsistence et la démographie de la France de l’Ancien régime,” Population 1, 4 (1946), pp. 643–50. Pierre Goubert’s 1960 study of the Beauvaisis (above, note 9) remains the most famous investigation of susbsistence crises. A recent summary of French research may be found in Fran¸cois Lebrun, “Les crises de démographie en France aux XVIIième et XVIIIième siècles,” Annales: Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations [hereinafter Annales E.S.C.] 35 (1980), pp. 205–33. For England see R. D. Lee, “Short-term Variations: Vital Rates, Prices and Weather” in E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, The Population History of England, 1541–1871 (London, 1981), chapter 9, pp. 350–407. For a comparative perspective see Andrew Appleby, “Grain Prices and Subsistence Crises in England and France, 1590–1790,” Journal of Economic History 39, 4 (1979), pp. 865– 87. Rather fewer local investigations have been undertaken in Germany. See, however, Philip L. Kinter, “Die Teuerung von 1570/72 in Memmingen,” Memminger Geschichtsblätter (1987/ 8), pp. 28–75.


113

not in outright decline. More fundamentally, it was argued, in the absence of significant technological or institutional change, the chief engine of increased output was the expansion of the labor force. Thus, the stagnation or decline of population, whether occasioned by either or both of Malthus’ checks, by its very nature throttled the development of the early modern economy. Indeed, at the peak of enthusiasm for the Malthusian model in the early 1970s, the French historian Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie went so far as to characterize the entire sweep of the fourteenth through the eighteenth centuries in the following terms: For the apparent movement, things had really stayed much the same . . . the active agricultural population whose total dimensions had persistently observed the same norms, was digging away at its plots of land with techniques that had barely changed, obtaining yields that had not significantly improved. Such yields were powerless to prevent some hundreds or thousands of people becoming direct or indirect victims of starvation every thirty years or so.15 The “biological ceiling,” or “structural constraint,” had become the single most significant force in European social history. In recent years it has become fashionable to attack the Malthusian model. Most objections to the model fall into one of three broad categories. First is a Marxist critique, which argues that the concrete repercussions of the early modern production crisis were decisively determined by class structure. Thus, differently ordered societies saw significantly different outcomes from the same kind of crisis. The second critique comes from the world of cliometrics, and is based on the observation of an imperfect statistical correlation between sudden surges in grain prices and increases in recorded burials. Harvest shocks were indeed associated with increased short-term mortality, but the latter pattern is never explicable completely or even predominantly in terms of the former. The last type of critique is more general, and tends to be voiced in local or regional studies. Here the objection takes the form of a rejection of the conception of peasants as helpless victims, and an emphasis on the variety of economic patterns and the affluence of at least some members of rural society. To be frank, all of these criticisms fail to blunt the analytic force of the Malthusian model. They quite properly direct attention to the complex reverberations of economic crises. They enrich what had been an unduly stark narrative of the interaction of abstract quantities. But they leave untouched the basic diagnosis that too little food was grown for too many mouths. The reality of some kind of structural constraint is nowhere impeached, and the empirical outlines of the Malthusian story – agricultural and demographic expansion in the sixteenth century followed by some hundred years of stagnation – stand uncontroverted. 15

LeRoy Ladurie, “History that Stands Still,” p. 21. See also his other articles reprinted in LeRoy Ladurie, The Territory of the Historian, trans. Ben and Siân Reynolds (Chicago, 1979).

114


For all the qualifications of specialized research, the most recent literature surveys continue to narrate the seventeenth century as a cautionary tale of the technological limitations of the early modern period, with real economic transformation postponed until the scientific advances of the Enlightenment. What can the tribulations of Anna Langheunz contribute to this debate? Anna’s subsequent story is one of perseverance in the face of adversity. After the death of her husband, she headed the household for at least eight years. Some of them were good years in which the cows gave her as many as three calves to sell. In other years she had to make do with only one,16 but she managed to hang on long enough to establish her son Jerg Braun on the farm.17 Jerg was in turn succeeded by his hard-working son Caspar, who by 1606 was squeezing over 50 percent more grain from the land than his father had managed. By 1620, Anna’s grandson owned almost 700 gulden worth of property, including 24 jauchert of land as well as the unequivocal sign of at least modest comfort: a team of two horses.18 Heart-warming though all of this may be, it is hard to see that the family had any other choice. Given the straits in which Hans Braun left them in 1566, there was precious little else to do but work harder. Yet for all their work, there were still very definite limits to what could be achieved. Jerg was not the only one of Anna’s children to marry, but he was the only one to settle in Reuthen. His brother Johann married a woman from Langenberg in 1574, but the couple seem to have drifted out of the monastery lands shortly thereafter.19 Even Caspar Braun, for all his land and horses, was up to his neck in debt.20 There is thus a sense in which the Brauns of Reuthen both are, and are not, an example of the structural limitations of the early modern economy. On the one hand, Hans Braun does seem to have been caught between an excess of dependants and a shortfall of material resources. On the other hand, his widow, children, and grandchildren did succeed in avoiding the fate of neighbors who simply collapsed under the pressures besetting the hamlet.21 Then again, the family’s long-term survival was but a qualified success, which in any case 16 17 18 19

20 21

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 681, Heft 2, f. 6r; KL Ottobeuren 688–I, Heft 5, f. 17v and Heft 6, f. 18v. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 901, f. 37r [6 July 1583]; KL Ottobeuren 30, ff. 21r–24v; KL Ottobeuren 31, f. 50r; KL Ottobeuren 583, Heft 9 (1593), f. 4r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 39, f. 135v; KL Ottobeuren 102, f. 77r. Ottobeuren Parish Register [hereinafter OttPR], Vol. I, f. 125r [17 Oct. 1574]. Johann is nowhere mentioned in the 1584 rent and tithe roll, the 1586 bond-chicken register, or the notarial protocols for 1580–1 and 1583–4. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 102, f. 77r. E.g. the cottager Balthas Herz, who attempted to survive by mortgaging his house and borrowing money from neighbors, but was ultimately driven to crime. On 21 December 1587, he was arrested while attempting to break into and rob the chapel of Our Blessed Lady in Eldern. At first condemned to the gallows, he was ultimately sentenced to be flogged through the streets and then banished from the monastery lands. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 491-I, Heft 3, f. 7v; KL Ottobeuren 918, f. 13v [4 Feb. 1580]; KL Ottobeuren 901, f. 97v [4 Apr. 1584]; KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 292S, ff. 662r–663r [18 Jan. 1588].


115

extended to only some of its members. All of this warns against the false choice of either completely accepting or utterly rejecting the Malthusian model. It also underscores both the danger of oversimplification and the limitations of a single example. Let us turn, therefore, to a more detailed and more general consideration of the problem of economic resources at Ottobeuren. Perhaps the most appropriate place to begin is with demography, and it may also be helpful to distinguish between short-term and long-term patterns. The standard investigative model for the short term involves comparison of grain prices and burials in an effort to determine the relation (if any) between the fluctuations of the two. Unfortunately, analysis of this sort for the Ottobeuren lands is handicapped by the scarcity of source material. Although continuous grain price series are available after 1530 from the nearby city of Memmingen,22 burial records are much harder to come by. Parish registers, the standard source of demographic information, are rare in Catholic Germany before the second half of the seventeenth century (this is only in part due to the destruction of records during the Thirty Years War; it was only in the 1650s that episcopal visitors began to insist that the local priests keep parish registers). For our present purposes, there is only one parish, the double village of Ober- and Unterwesterheim, where the records are complete enough for the period before the Thirty Years War. Nevertheless, the parish register still provides a helpful insight into the eco-demographic world of the Ottobeuren peasantry. In 1595 one Father Michael Koler was appointed pastor of Ober- and Unterwesterheim. Koler was a diligent man, and for the next thirty years he maintained a detailed register of baptisms, marriages, and burials, a document which is unusually complete in that it also records the deaths of infants (most early modern European burial registers include only those over the age of five or six). Figure 3.2. presents the annual movements of burials over the period 1595–1625, together with the village’s tithe receipts and rye prices from Memmingen. At first sight there is no obvious correlation between the two series; at times the relation actually appears to be inverse. Even in the difficult years of 1622–5, when a combination of deficient harvests and currency debasement sent grain prices soaring to stratospheric levels, mortality clearly did not follow suit. Still, it would be misleading to suggest that grain prices had no influence on mortality patterns. Ober- and Unterwesterheim did not constitute a large parish, with a total population of only 340 in 1564.23 The annual number of burials was small, 22

23

StadtA MM D Folioband 99, D 102/1a–1b. Memmingen rye prices for the period 1600–99 are available in Thomas Wolf, Reichsstädte in Kriegszeiten (Memmingen, 1991). As was seen in chapter 2, the use of urban prices as a proxy for rural prices is not unproblematic, but the Westerheim parish accounts, the only source of price data from the village itself, are missing for the years 1583–1612. Richard Dertsch, ed. “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats vom Jahre 1564,” Allgäuer Heimatbücher 50 [Alte Allgäuer Geschlechter 34] (1955), pp. III–V.

116


250.0 Tithes 200.0

Rye prices Burials

150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 1595

1600

1605

1610

1615

1620

1625

Figure 3.2 Tithes, rye prices, and burials in Westerheim, 1595–1625 Notes: 30 year average = 100. No tithe data are available for 1604–5 and 1612–13 Sources: Westerheim Parish Register; StAMM, D. 19/5, 21, Folioband 1/D452; Wolf, Reichsstädte in Kriegszeiten, Table 82, p. 76

usually between seven and fifteen, such that an increase or decrease of two or three produced wide proportionate swings in the total. Moreover, it has long been known that harvest failures could influence population patterns not only by increasing mortality but also by temporarily depressing natality. Thus, if we examine the overall demographic balance (baptisms minus infant and adult deaths) in the parish in the three decades after 1595, it is striking (and can be no coincidence) that all of the instances of net decrease – 1611–12 and 1623 – were years of bad harvests (see Figure 3.3). But although harvest failures played some role as a check on population in the double village, the more important observation is that this role was very limited. Although the bad harvests of 1611–12 and 1623 coincided with years of net decrease, this was not true of the bad harvests of 1614 and 1625.24 More fundamentally, it must be emphasized that 90 percent of the time the parish registered a net population increase, and even when this was not the case the deficit was in both cases made up within a year. This was clearly not a demographic regime regulated in any significant way by subsistence crises. If in the short term rural society at Ottobeuren tended towards population growth, what was the trend in the long term? Here we cannot proceed without 24

A general idea of harvest quality at Ottobeuren may be gained from the account books of the tithe. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 40, records tithes for the period 1560–1629; receipts plunged dramatically in 1612 and 1623, and substantially in 1614 and 1625. Bad harvests are mentioned in 1611, 1614, and 1624 in the seventeenth-century chronicle of a Memmingen doctor. Christoph Schorer, Memminger Chronick (Ulm, 1660; repr. Kempten, 1964), pp. 120–130.


117

15

10

5

0

-5 1595

1600

1605

1610

1615

1620

1625

Figure 3.3 Demographic balance in Westerheim, 1595–1625 Source: Westerheim Parish Register

a more detailed discussion of the source material. There are three main kinds of documents which allow us to reconstruct long-term population trends in the period before the Thirty Years War reached the monastery lands in 1632. The first of these are tax records, from which may be extracted the number of households in a given settlement or series of settlements. Tax lists for the entire monastic territory have survived from the years 1525, 1541, 1546, 1620, 1624, and 1627.25 There is also a shorter list for the Markt, or market town, Ottobeuren alone from 1585.26 Useful as they are, tax records suffer from a serious weakness in that they list households rather than persons. An estimate of the actual population on the basis of these records thus requires knowledge of an elusive and at times hotly debated quantity, namely the average size of the peasant household. Even then, calculation of long-term population trends from tax records hinges on the assumption that the size of the peasant household remained constant. Fortunately, a second category of documents is available at Ottobeuren to provide at least a partial solution to these problems. The records in question are known as Leibeigenbücher, or “serf books.” In consequence of the fragmentation of the different forms of lordship in Swabia, it was often the case that although one authority had an exclusive claim to collect ground rents in a village, the inhabitants themselves “belonged” as serfs to one or even several other authorities. Peasant migration and intermarriage further clouded the picture to the point that sorting out rights of jurisdictional competence or taxation became bewilderingly complicated. In the Ottobeuren lands the peasants belonged to 25 26

Respectively StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541 (Heft 2), 63, 64, 102, 103, and 104. The first three list only the tax payment, the latter three describe each householder’s property in detail. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 676a.

118


over twenty different lords, in addition to which slightly less than one fourth of the peasantry was legally free. In order to remedy this confusion, the monastery periodically drew up a Leibeigenbuch to record the specific servile or free status of the inhabitants of its territory. Since members of the same family might have different legal statuses, the process theoretically entailed compiling a list not only of every household, but also of every man, woman, and child in the monastery lands. Serf books are available at Ottobeuren for the years 1486/7, 1548, 1556, 1564, and 1585/6,27 although only the middle three cover the entire subject population and only the last two are detailed enough for reliable calculations of household size in every village. Further clarification of demographic trends for the period after 1586 is provided by a third class of records: episcopal visitation reports on the number of communicants in each parish. Under canon law all Catholics having reached the age of majority (usually considered to be twelve) were required to receive communion at least once a year at Easter. In the diocese of Augsburg, where the Ottobeuren lands were located, parish priests were required at intervals of ten or twenty years to submit the number of Easter communicants to the bishop. Four such counts were made between 1593 and 1626, and coverage of the Ottobeuren villages and hamlets is virtually complete.28 Like the tax records, the visitation reports have their own particular strengths and weaknesses. It is important to realize that the figures are estimates. The vast majority of the individual parish counts were made in numbers rounded to the nearest multiple of ten; for the pastor of Frechenrieden to have reported 246 communicants in 1620 was exceptional. Despite some degree of imprecision, however, communicant counts have the advantage of being based on a known and fairly constant proportion of the actual population. In addition, village census totals from the 1585/6 serf book can easily be checked against the 1593 communicant counts to allow calculation of the ratio between the two. The problem of potential shifts in the size of the peasant household, which bedevils the use of tax records, thus does not arise with the visitation reports. In sum, then, the tax records and serf books allow accurate enumeration of the number of households in the period 1525–1620, and permit an estimate of the trend between 1486/7 and 1525. As far as the actual population is concerned, these records furnish a detailed picture of the trend between 1548 and 1585/6. After 1586 reliable if somewhat less precise population figures can be reconstructed on the basis of the communicant counts in the visitation reports. Let us examine these patterns in turn. 27 28

Respectively StAA, KL Ottobeuren 601-I, 600, 24 (Mü.B), 25 (Mü.B), and 601-II. The visitation reports are abstracted in Martin Sontheimer, Die Geistlichkeit des Kapitels Ottobeuren von dessen Ursprung bis zur Säkularisation (5 vols., Memmingen 1912–20).


119

700 600 8 villages 500 400 34 hamlets

300 200

Market town of Ottobeuren

100 0 1520

1540

1560

1580

1600

1620

Figure 3.4 Household numbers in selected Ottobeuren settlements, 1525–1620 Sources: StAA KL Ottobeuren 541 (Heft 2), 64, 102, 600, 601-II; Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564”

Figure 3.4 displays the movement of the number of households in forty-three selected settlements representing just over 60 percent of the 1564 population of the monastery lands. In the market town of Ottobeuren, the overall pattern is one of virtually continuous growth. Elsewhere the trend is less straightforward. In the eight villages and thirty-four hamlets the number of households increased steadily from the middle third of the sixteenth century (a pattern which calls into question the widely asserted claim that rural Upper Swabia had reached a point of demographic saturation on the eve of the Peasants’ War).29 After 1564 population growth slowed to a halt and was then reversed, although this did not happen everywhere at the same time. Of the eight villages, two reached the maximum number of households in 1564, five in 1585/6, and one in 1620. In the hamlets the absence of records between 1564 and 1620 prevents specification of the turning point. Whatever the case may be, by 1620 the total number of households had declined by 9.1 percent in the villages and by 21.4 percent in the hamlets since 1564. All of this took place in the context of a tremendous increase in the price of grain, which rose by over 200 percent between the mid-1530s and the late 1580s.30 On the face of it, then, the long-term trends seem paradigmatic of a population outgrowing its capacity to feed itself. But before rushing to embrace 29 30

E.g. Peter Blickle, The Revolution of 1525, trans. Thomas A. Brady Jr. and H. C. Erik Midelfort (Baltimore, 1981), pp. 50–1, 214 n. 52. StadtA MM D Folioband 99, D 102/1a–1b.

120


Table 3.1 Households and communicants in four Ottobeuren villages, 1586–1621

Settlement

HouseCommunicants/ HouseCommunicants/ holds Communicants household holds Communicants household 1586 1593 1586/93 1621 1620 1620/1

Frechenrieden 77 147 Hawangena Niederrieden 80 Sontheim 135

160 300 180 330

2.08 2.04 2.25 2.44

Total Index

970 100

2.21 100

439 100

69 123 74 140 406 92.5

197 400 220 400 1217 125.5

2.86 3.25 2.97 2.85 3.00 135.7

a Includes the adjacent hamlets of Ober- and Untermoosbach Sources: Sontheimer, Die Geistlichkeit des Kapitels Ottobeuren, vols. II–IV; StAA, KL Ottobeuren 102, 601-II

this Malthusian interpretation, there are two important cautions regarding the evidence to keep in mind. As may be expected, the first of these concerns the relationship between the number of households and the actual population. In 1586, the average peasant household contained 4.0 persons,31 but thereafter it began to grow. At the very least, this increase in household size was enough to stabilize the population at its 1564 peak by the end of the 1620s. It is also entirely possible, however, that the counterbalancing effect was greater still, such that the population continued to grow (albeit at much reduced rates) for another sixty years after the overall number of households peaked in 1564. The absence of serf books after 1586 makes it difficult precisely to measure the growth in household size, but the episcopal visitations enable a fairly good estimate of the scale of the increase. Taking the 1593 communicant count as a standard of reference, the number of communicants in the monastery lands as a whole had risen 25.5 percent by 1620. As has been seen, the number of households had declined over the same period. Thus the increase in the number of communicants per household was greater still. Table 3.1 illustrates these changes in four of the best documented villages. There is independent evidence of a considerable increase in household size between the 1580s and 1620s, driven largely by the spread of household service.32 Nevertheless, the increase detailed in the communicant counts should not be attributed entirely to population growth, for some of it must have been 31

32

This figure is based on the serf rolls of the villages of Hawangen-Moosbach, Sontheim, Frechenrieden Niederrieden, and Wolfertschwenden. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 601–II, ff. 751–88v, 101r– 112v, 116r–121v, 124r–131v and 141r–147v. Household size seems to have remained fairly constant at Ottobeuren since the mid-sixteenth century; between 1546/8 and 1586, the mean number of persons per household rose from 3.91 to 4.23 in Frechenrieden but fell from 3.98 to 3.86 in Hawangen-Moosbach. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 64, ff. 36r–38r and 55v–57r; 600, ff. 127v– 152v and 220v–233r. See below, pp. 225–7.


121

the result of more widespread compliance with the requirements of canon law. It is quite clear that the proportion of the population receiving communion was substantially higher at Ottobeuren by c. 1700 (65–75 percent) than it had been c. 1590 (50–60 percent),33 although it is less certain when this shift took place. Investigations in other parts of Germany suggest that increases in compliance were slight before the second half of the seventeenth century.34 It must also be pointed out that a dramatic shift in the relatively brief interval 1593–1626 is a priori rather implausible. Be that as it may, it was also the case that important ecclesiastical reforms were introduced at Ottobeuren in precisely this brief interval, reforms which may well have made annual communion somewhat more common among the peasantry. Clerical concubinage, for example, was largely stamped out between 1575 and 1626. By 1626 all of the parish priests had also been trained at universities,35 and some priests had begun to keep parish registers. The point is not that these reforms would immediately have instilled a deeper piety among the Abbot’s subjects, but rather that the growing professionalization of the rural clergy is likely to have enhanced the vigor of pastoral supervision.36 In this context it does not seem implausible that the proportion of those actually fulfilling the obligation of annual communion should have increased. But let us return to demography. Table 3.2 presents a summary of the various trends in the nucleated villages of the monastery lands (the data on the hamlets are not complete enough to permit calculations of this sort). Two possible 33

34

35

36

The 1590 estimate is based on a comparison of the number of communicants reported in the 1593 visitation with the village population recorded in the serf book of 1585/6. Communicants made up 49.1 percent of the population in Frechenrieden, 52.9 percent in Hawangen, 56.3 percent in Niederrieden, and 60.4 percent in Sontheim. The 1700 estimate is taken from the episcopal visitation of 1695, which in several villages lists both the number of communicants and the total number of parishioners. The communicating proportion ranged from 62.1 percent (Egg) and 66.3 percent (Reicholzried) to 70.9 percent (Frechenrieden) and 75.0 percent (Hawangen). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 601-II; Sontheimer, Geistlichkeit des Kapitels Ottobeuren, Vols. II–IV. Marc R. Forster, The Counter-Reformation in the Villages: Religion and Reform in the Bishopric of Speyer 1564–1720 (Ithaca, 1992), pp. 23, 104–6, 241; Manfred Becker-Huberti, Die Tridentinische Reform im Bistum Münster unter Fürstbischof Christoph von Galen 1650–1678 (Munster, 1978), pp. 247–8. In the parishes for which the 1575 visitation survives, seven of twelve priests (58.5 percent) had concubines. By the time of the 1626 visitation, none of the priests had concubines. According to the 1626 visitation, every single parish priest in the monastery lands had had some university training, usually at the Jesuit colleges in Ingolstadt and Dillingen, but also in Munich, Augsburg, Freiburg, and Regensburg. Their fields of study included rhetoric, metaphysics, philosophy, theology, physics, logic, and casuistry. The parish priest in the market town of Ottobeuren had studied theology at the Collegium Germanicum in Rome. Sontheimer, Geistlichkeit des Kapitels Ottobeuren, Vols. II–IV. Thus, for example, in 1606 sixteen men in the village of Günz were fined on the complaint of the pastor that “without any reason [they] never come to church either on Sunday or on other feast days.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 26 (1606/7). The miller of Niederdorf was fined one pound in 1594 because “every feast day [he] goes riding off to get his medicines and never goes to church at all.” Ibid., Heft 18 (1594/5).

122


Table 3.2 Population in five Ottobeuren villages, 1564–1620 Settlement

1564

1586

1620 Assumption 1

1620 Assumption 2

Hawangen Sontheim Frechenrieden Wolfertschwenden Niederrieden Total Index [1564 = 100]

662 549 390 281 306 2188 100

567 546 326 246 320 2005 91.6

560 666 344 262 349 2181 99.7

645 767 396 302 402 2512 114.8

Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 102, 601-II; Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564”; Sontheimer, Die Geistlichkeit des Kapitels Ottobeuren, Vols. II–IV

scenarios have been reconstructed. The first assumes that only half of the increase in the number of communicants per household represented actual population growth; the other half is attributed to more widespread reception of Easter communion by the peasantry. This assumption would imply a mean household size of 4.71 persons in 1620. The second scenario presumes that eucharistic compliance did not change between 1593 and 1620, in which case household size would have averaged 5.42 persons in 1620. On either scenario there was a definite population increase in that interval. It could of course be argued that none of the foregoing is truly incompatible with a Malthusian interpretation. After all, the population of the Ottobeuren lands did decline between 1564 and 1586, and even if growth resumed after 1593, the rate of increase was much lower than it had been in the first half of the sixteenth century. Moreover, the overall 1620 population was at best 14.8 percent higher and quite probably the same size as it had been in 1564. The last third of the sixteenth century remains a demographic watershed. These are perfectly legitimate objections, but this only brings us to the second and more important caution about the demographic trend. To interpret a slackening of population growth as an indication of some kind of systemic blockage or breakdown is to presume a rather simplistic relation between economic sophistication and population density. As is clear from Table 3.3, however, the assumption is by no means a safe one. The returns of the 1840 Bavarian state census reveal a population in the former monastery lands only trivially larger than the late sixteenth-century peak. As late as 1890, population was barely 20 percent higher than it had been in 1564 and possibly no higher than it was in 1620. The intent here is not to suggest that the Swabian rural economy was as advanced at the time of the Council of Trent as it would be under Bismarck. Rather, the point is that the relationship between population density and economic development is much less straightforward than has often been assumed. If


123

Table 3.3 Population of the lands of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1564–1890 Settlement

1564

1793

1840

1890

Attenhausen Benningen Böhen Dietratried Egg an der Günz Frechenrieden Günz Hawangen Niederdorf Niederrieden Schlegelsberg Sontheim Ober- and Unterwesterheim Wolfertschwenden Villages subtotal Böhen parish Ottobeuren parish Hamlets subtotal Markt Ottobeuren

355 794 229 139 384 390 161 662 191 359 215 549 340 281 5049 573 1493 2066 699

352 471 335 129 406 414 189 431 187 390 117 549 361 199 4530 374 1574 1948 1355

404 557 369 155 458 434 227 543 216 461 227 700 485 312 5548 412 1732 2144 1656

453 639 358 147 593 441 214 615 282 551 221 921 618 376 6429 400 1834 2234 1799

Sources: Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564”; Josef Heider, “Grundherrschaft und Landeshoheit der Abtei Ottobeuren: Nachwirkungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,” Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige 73, 2–4 (1962), pp. 63–95, at p. 89 (for 1793); Bayerischen Statistischen Landesamt, ed. “Historisches Gemeindeverzeichnis: Die Einwohnerzahlen der Gemeinde Bayerns in der Zeit von 1840 bis 1952,” Beiträge zur Statistik Bayerns 192 (Munich, 1953)

the density at which population growth stopped at sixteenth-century Ottobeuren was unsurpassed until far into the industrial age, it behooves us to be cautious about regarding that cessation as a failure. The ambiguity of the demographic evidence is only part of the problem with a Malthusian vision of rural life at Ottobeuren. For the essence of this vision is not simply that population growth rates vary over time, but rather that the regulatory mechanism of final instance was the size of the food supply. This brings us, at long last, to agricultural technology, customarily regarded as the Achilles heel of the early modern economy. As was the case in most parts of early modern Europe, the subsistence of the common people of the monastery lands revolved around the production and consumption of grain. The peasants worked the land in the three-course rotation common to much of Europe. One third of the arable land lay fallow each year, and the rest was given over to the production of food grains.37 Chief amongst 37

See for example StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29. In the section on the village of Egg (ff. 90r–101v) arable land is classed in three categories, (1) sown with rye, (2) sown with oats, and (3) fallow.

124


these were rye and oats,38 which were consumed by the peasants in the form of bread and porridge respectively. Spelt and barley were also harvested, but in smaller quantities; the wheat crop was insignificant by comparison.39 By all indications, the fields yielded but a grudging multiple of what was sown. Precise figures are hard to come by, but granary accounts from 1623/4 and 1624/5 record the amounts both sown and harvested on the monastery’s demesne lands and thus permit the calculation of yield: seed ratios for a variety of grains. Most of the yield ratios are clustered between 4.5 and 5.5:1, scarcely an improvement over medieval yields.40 There is of course the question of how reliably we may infer the yields of peasant farming from the harvests on demesne lands. This is an entirely legitimate concern. In the early eighteenth century the Abbot of Ottobeuren felt strongly enough about the greater efficiency of peasant farming that he arranged for his stewards to receive instruction from an elderly villager.41 The yield ratio figures from the monastery demesne may thus provide a misleading impression of productivity on the peasant holdings. It does not seem likely, however, that the productivity differential was all that great. Although we have no account books kept by peasants, there is a document which sheds at least some light on the matter. In 1637 an unnamed monastic official drew up a list of anticipated tithes on the basis of the peasants’ seed corn. From the projected receipts it is easy to see that the scribe assumed that the peasants would harvest only five measures of grain for each measure sown.42 The figures from the 1637 account were of course only estimates, but they are unlikely to have been wildly incorrect. This being the case, it does appear that 38 39

40

41

42

For the consumption of oats in early modern Swabia see Hans Jänichen, Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des schwäbischen Dorfes (Stuttgart, 1970), pp. 86–9, 99–106. For the dominance of rye and oats, see the 1586/7 description of the monastery’s grain rents in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 224, Heft 1. A later, but more accurate picture may be gained from the 1621/2 breakdown of the monastery’s tithe receipts recorded in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 225, ff. 104v–109v. In the villages the tithe was composed above all of rye (42.8% by volume), spelt (26.7%), and oats (22.0%), the remainder consisting of mixed grain (4.0%), barley (3.1%), and wheat (1.4%). In the hamlets the pre-eminent grains were oats (55.7%) and spelt (32.4%), while rye (6.7%), barley (4.5%), and mixed grains (0.7%) were relatively unimportant. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 226. These accounts from 1622–5 record amounts sown and harvested at five separate demesne farms, although not all farms harvested all grains. Over both years average yields were 5.44:1 for rye and 3.95:1 for oats. Yields for spelt can be calculated only for 1624/5, when the average yield was 5.56:1. For comparison with medieval and other early modern yields see (in addition to the survey by Slicher van Bath) the statistical compilation of Aldo de Maddalena, “Rural Europe 1500–1750” in Carlo M. Cippola, ed, The Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. II: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Glasgow, 1974), pp. 595–622. Franz Karl Weber, “Wirtschaftsquellen und Wirtschaftsaufbau des Reichsstiftes Ottobeuren im beginnenden 18. Jahrhundert,” Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des BenediktinerOrdens und seiner Zweige 58 (1940), pp. 107–37, at p. 108. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 202, ff. 91v–98v. The manuscript contains accounts from 1635/6, 1636/7, and 1637/8. The tithe list comes from the last account, and covers all of the hamlets in the parishes of Böhen and Ottobeuren.


125

the level of agricultural productivity at early modern Ottobeuren was entirely in keeping with the Malthusian scenario. Be that as it may, it is worth asking whether these paltry yield ratios were really as much a sign of backwardness and a hindrance to economic development as they are so often held to have been. In the first place, it should be kept in mind that advanced techniques for the more intensive use of the soil had been well known at Ottobeuren since the end of the Middle Ages. The alternating use of land as both arable and pasture in a pattern of convertible husbandry and the flooding of pasture land to create water meadows were key technical innovations argued to have revolutionized agricultural productivity in other parts of early modern Europe.43 Neither technique was ever adopted on a large scale at Ottobeuren, but the fact that both are documented there at least as far back as the fifteenth century44 indicates that peasant ignorance is not a plausible explanation for low yield ratios. Instead, it may well have been that the expensive techniques associated with intensive grain farming did not make economic sense given the quality of the soil in Upper Swabia. In this regard it warrants mention that with the coming of the railroad and improved marketing opportunities in the late nineteenth century, the response of the Upper Swabian peasantry was a drastic reduction in grain growing in favor of specialization in milk and cheese production.45 More to the point, it is not at all clear from the yield ratio figures alone that the wider economy was hamstrung by the level of agricultural productivity. Naturally, all things being equal higher yield ratios were preferable to lower ones. All the same, the relationship between the amounts harvested and sown does not tell us how much food was actually available and whether or not that amount was adequate. This may seem like an otiose objection, but it turns out that yield ratios at the levels observed at seventeenth-century Ottobeuren remained the norm in southern Germany as late as the middle of the nineteenth century, which shows just how ambiguous an economic indicator yield ratios can be (see Figure 3.5, which presents rye yield:seed ratios in Bavaria as reported in the agricultural census of 1863). If, then, we are to judge the agricultural viability of early modern rural society, we must turn our attention from productivity to production. 43 44

45

For Flanders see Slicher van Bath, Agrarian History, pp. 178–9; for England see Eric Kerridge, The Agricultural Revolution (London, 1967), pp. 181–221, 251–67. Hermann Hoffmann, ed. Die Urkunden des Reichsstiftes Ottobeuren 764–1460, Schwäbische Forschungsgemeinschaft Reihe 2a, Urkunden und Regesten; Band 13 (Augsburg, 1991), Document no. 154 [10 June 1398] for convertible husbandry and no. 337 [29 May 1449] for water meadows. Josef Wilhelm Pregler, “Milchwirtschaft und Tierzucht und deren Grundlagen” in Aegidius Kolb, ed., Landkreis Unterallgäu (2 vols., Mindelheim, 1987), Vol. I, pp. 470–543. Pregler’s calculations show that in the district where the monastery lands were located, the proportion of agricultural land occupied by meadows rose from 37.9 percent in 1830–6 to 43.2 percent in 1893 to 63.2 percent in 1939.

126


Figure 3.5 Rye yield ratios in Bavaria, 1863 Source: F. von Hermann, “Die Ernten im Königreich Bayern und in einigen anderen Ländern,” Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs, Bayern, Heft 15 (Munich, 1866), pp. 1–21

The clearest obtainable picture of food production at Ottobeuren comes to us from the records of the ecclesiastical tithe.46 Our dependence on this source imposes several limitations on what we can know. Simply put, the tithe was an imposition which like all impositions the peasantry resented and tried to avoid paying whenever and however possible. Some peasants surreptitiously 46

Briefly: StAA, KA Ottobeuren 245 (1517–41), StAA, KL Ottobeuren 34–6 (1544–96), 40 (1560– 1629), 55 (1652–72), 227 (1672–82), 230–2 (1692–1708), and 281–307 (1652–1714). There is considerable overlap in the records after 1652; the monastery’s granary prepared several summative accounts on the basis of the threshing registers in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 281–307.


127

mixed chaff in with their grain payments; others blithely left only every eleventh instead of every tenth sheaf to be collected.47 Alternatively, a peasant would claim that a particular parcel of arable land was legally exempt from the tithe. There were indeed a few such parcels in every village, but the impression gained from the documents is that the villagers had a more generous conception of the exempt acreage than did the monastic officials. All in all, it is clear that if we simply multiply the monastery’s tithe receipts by ten, we will almost certainly not end up with the total volume of grain actually harvested. But what will we end up with? If honesty compels us to admit the defects and biases of our source, fairness requires us to recognize the direction of these biases. Here there can be only one answer to the question: the records of the tithe, imperfect as they are, enable a minimum estimate of the size of the harvest. In other words, if a given tithe receipt when multiplied by ten yields a figure high enough to meet the needs of the population in question, we can be rather confident that at least enough was harvested to feed the inhabitants of the settlement. Of course, we still need to know what the minimum volume of grain necessary for subsistence actually was, but here we are on much firmer ground. Grain consumption patterns in early modern Germany have been the subject of intensive investigation. While it cannot be denied that differences of opinion remain, most investigations have concluded that the subsistence minimum per capita grain requirement of the population as a whole (i.e. children and the elderly included; the requirement for working adults alone was a good deal higher than the global average) was approximately three hectoliters of grain per annum.48 In terms of the measure of capacity at Ottobeuren, this translates into 47

48

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 17 (1593/4): Michael Rauch of Benningen fined three pounds for leaving only the eleventh sheaf of grain. Jacob Heinrich of Hawangen left only the sixteenth sheaf; fined three pounds ten shillings. Balthas Widenmann of Benningen fined one pound because the sheaves he delivered as his tithe were “bound too small compared with the other ones” (which he kept for himself). StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 20 (1598/9): Mathias Rauch junior of Benningen “left the eleventh sheaf instead of the tenth”; fined four pounds. ¨ I am here relying on the painstaking work of Rainer Beck, Naturale Okonomie. Unterfinning: Bäuerliche Wirtschaft in einem oberbayerischen Dorf des frühen 18. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1986), esp. pp. 176–89, 232–4. Beck argues quite convincingly that the subsistence minimum for an early modern peasant adult was between 245 and 265 kg of grain per annum. If we assume that this was composed one third of oats and two thirds of rye, we arrive at a volume of 325.8–352.1 liters or 1.49–1.61 Ottobeuren malter. Beck calculates that the needs of the village population as a whole (i.e. taking into account the lower consumption requirements of children and the elderly) represented 77 percent of an adult’s requirement. This gives us an Ottobeuren equivalent of 1.15–1.24 malter. Other important studies are Dietmar Ebeling and Franz Irsigler, Getreideumsatz, Getreide- und Brotpreise in Köln 1368–1796 (2 vols., Cologne/Vienna, 1976– 7), Vol. 1, pp. ix–xii, and Bernd Roeck, Bäcker, Brot und Getriede in Augsburg (Sigmaringen, 1987), pp. 73–7, both of which arrive at an estimated per capita requirement of 3 hectoliters, or 1.37 malter. I have chosen to err on the side of caution and adopt the figure of 1.5 malter.

128


300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620 1630 Figure 3.6 Estimated proportion (%) of minimum grain requirement harvested in HawangenMoosbach, 1517–1629 Sources: StAA, KA Ottobeuren 245; KL Ottobeuren 34–6, 40, 64, 102, 541 (2), 600, 601-II; Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564”; Sontheimer, Die Geistlichkeit des Kapitels Ottobeuren, Vol. II

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620 1630 Figure 3.7 Estimated proportion (%) of minimum grain requirement harvested in Frechenrieden, 1517–1629 Sources: As for Figure 3.6

roughly one and a half malter of grain. Let us assume, therefore, that the annual subsistence minimum at early modern Ottobeuren was 1.8 malter per capita, that is 1.5 malter for consumption and 0.3 malter for the next year’s seed corn given an average yield ratio of about five to one. Figures 3.6 and 3.7 represent best guess reconstructions of the long-term evolution of the food supply in two Ottobeuren villages, Hawangen-Moosbach


129

49

and Frechenrieden. Needless to say, these estimates are subject to many qualifications, some of which have been discussed above. All the same, it is also the case that direct attempts to measure the balance between population and food supply in early modern Europe are exceedingly rare. Despite the wellknown methodological pitfalls of so doing, most investigations are content to rely on urban grain prices as an indirect indicator. Thus, in light of the near unanimity with which early modern Europe has been pronounced a society ever on the verge of starvation, these two reconstructions offer an important new perspective. It is perfectly clear from Figures 3.6 and 3.7 that there were indeed years when there was truly not enough food to go around at Ottobeuren. At Hawangen-Moosbach the harvest failures of 1571, 1623, and 1627 must have visited enormous suffering upon the village. Frechenrieden saw similar hardship in 1569, 1582, and 1625. The extreme variability of the harvest is equally striking. In 1612 the harvest at Hawangen-Moosbach was more than twice what was needed; the next year there was just barely enough for the villagers to eat. The most important revelation of these two reconstructions, however, is that the third horseman only rarely darkened the village streets. Almost all of the time the harvest was more than large enough to feed the peasantry. The surprisingly optimistic conclusions of the subsistence reconstructions for these two villages are also valid for the monastery lands as a whole. It is not possible to calculate longitudinal series for each and every settlement, but we are able to draw up a territorial balance sheet for two crucial decades of peak population, the 1560s and the 1620s. Our first balance sheet (see Table 3.4) coincides with the demographic peak of the mid-sixteenth century, after which point the population went into decline or at least stagnation for a generation. But although this pattern has all the hallmarks of a Malthusian inflection point (and has been designated as such for Upper Swabia),50 it was not the case that the population had outgrown its capacity to feed itself. Naturally the picture is not unambiguously Panglossian. As is clear from Table 3.4, the food supply in the hamlets was rather less secure than in the nucleated villages. The safety margin in the parish of Ottobeuren was rather exiguous, whereas the parish of Böhen operated in a definite food deficit. The unsatisfactory food output of the hamlets was more than outweighed, however, by the abundant harvests in the nucleated villages. Taken as a whole, the Abbot’s subjects produced more than enough grain to feed themselves. 49

50

In calculating population growth after 1586, I have worked with the first scenario from Table 3.2, i.e. that half of the increase in communicants per household was the result of increased compliance with canon law. David Warren Sabean, Power in the Blood: Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Early Modern Germany (Cambridge, 1984), p. 7

130


Table 3.4 Grain supply at Ottobeuren in the 1560sa

Settlement 8 villages 33 hamlets (Ottobeuren parish) 16 hamlets (Böhen parish) Total

1564 population

Grain requirement (malter)

2895 1493

5211.0 2687.4

533 4921

Mean tithe 1560–9 × 10b

+/− (malter)

+/− (%)

9084.79 3209.03

+3873.79 +521.63

+74.3 +19.4

959.4

783.30

−176.10

−18.4

8857.8

13077.12

+4219.32

+47.6

a The villages are Attenhausen, B¨ ohen, Egg, Frechenrieden, Günz, Hawangen-Moosbach, Sontheim, and Unterwolfertschwenden. The hamlets in Ottobeuren parish are Eggisried, Stephansried, Gumpratzried, Dennenberg, Frölins, Wetzlen, Langenberg, Guggenberg, Halbersberg, Betzisried, ¨ Hof, Unterhaslach, Oberhaslach, Olbrechts, Hohenheim, Rempolz, Vogelsang, Oberried, Dasperg, Höhe, Ollarzried, Schoren, Bibelsberg, Bühel, Reuthen, Oberböglins/Scherenberg, Unterböglins, Obermotz, Untermotz, Leupolz, Hössen, Hörlins/Schrallen, and Haitzen. The hamlets in Böhen parish are Karlass, Hüners, Lietzheim/Fricken, Bernhalden, auf dem Berg, Lampolz, the three sub-hamlets of Warlins, Nollen, Theilen, Günzegg, Waldmühle, Osterberg, Wetzlen, and Guntershalden/ Pfaudlins. b The Sontheim tithe is from 1572–8 Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 34–6, 40; KA Ottobeuren 343; Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564”

By the 1620s, as the resurgent rural population regained its mid-sixteenthcentury peak, the picture was somewhat different (see Table 3.5). In the nucleated villages the harvest had declined by about 8 percent since the mid1560s, a phenomenon visible in more detail in the two subsistence series from Hawangen-Moosbach and Frechenrieden. In the hamlets, by contrast, grain production had increased dramatically, by 33.5 percent in Ottobeuren parish and by 47.5 percent in Böhen parish. As a result, subsistence in the monastery lands had become more secure in a double sense. On the one hand, the grain-deficit and near grain-deficit hamlets were now not only self-sufficient, but actually generating surpluses. On the other hand, the surplus in the monastic territory as a whole had risen from 47.6 percent in the 1560s to 57.7 percent in the 1620s. Put differently, far from deteriorating into a Malthusian crisis over the course of the sixteenth century, the relation between population and grain supply at Ottobeuren had actually improved. Despite the rather surprising results of the foregoing investigation, it is important to keep them in proper perspective. When all is said and done, the fact remains that after several generations of virtually untrammeled expansion, population growth at Ottobeuren slowed down dramatically after the 1560s if it did not come to a complete halt. There is no intent here to deny this fact. Rather, the point is that the conventional interpretation of this pattern is flatly contradicted by the sources. In the first place, it remains an open question whether zero


131

Table 3.5 Grain supply at Ottobeuren in the 1620s

Settlement 8 villages 33 hamlets (Ottobeuren parish) 16 hamlets (Böhen parish) Total

1620 population

Grain requirement (malter)

2948 1352

5306.4 2433.6

557 4857

Mean tithe 1615–24 × 10a

+/− (malter)

+/− (%)

8346.56 4284.61

+3040.16 +1851.01

+57.3 +76.1

1002.6

1155.09

+152.49

+15.2

8742.6

13786.26

+5043.66

+57.7

a

The Sontheim tithe is from 1606–8 and 1618–20 Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 40, 102, 601-II; KA Ottobeuren 343; Sontheimer, Die Geistlichkeit des Kapitels Ottobeuren, Vols. II–IV

population growth is to be equated with economic stagnation. More fundamentally, whatever we may make of the demographic deceleration in the monastery lands, the phenomenon has to be explained in terms other than a Malthusian ceiling. Famine of biblical proportions was by no means unknown, and hungry winters may have been more common still, but the vast majority of the time the peasants of Ottobeuren did not starve. True though it may be that the Ottobeuren peasantry harvested more than enough grain to feed itself, it must be conceded that there is an air of irreality about the fact. In a society as stratified as the peasantry by the mid-sixteenth century had become, there was no necessary correspondence between material needs and the ability to meet them. Even before we may address ourselves to this problem, however, another interposes itself. For the wealth so painfully wrung from the soil, the loom, and the marketplace and then piled up in barns and storehouses was never left to the disposal of those who had produced it. A truly bewildering variety of impositions were levied upon the peasantry, and many of their hard-earned gains were siphoned away by the landlord, the church, and the territorial state. For obvious reasons, then, no discussion of the sixteenth-century rural economy can afford to overlook the extractive relationship between the peasantry and its overlords. This said, the precise historical role to be assigned to this relationship remains a matter of some dispute. Broadly speaking, there are two main approaches to the problem. The first view, an extension of the Malthusian position encountered above, is that the level of prestation was dictated by demography. When population rose, as in the thirteenth or sixteenth century, the economic position of the rural population deteriorated and the demand for land became intense. The peasants could thus be forced to pay higher rents. When, as in the fifteenth or seventeenth century, the population stagnated or declined, the tables were turned. It was now the landlords who were obliged to

132


offer rent reductions in order to attract and retain tenants. Surplus extraction is thus conceived as yet another function of the grand agrarian cycle.51 A second view accords more autonomy to the extractive relationship between peasant and overlord, seeing in the process an independent influence if not indeed the root cause of the cycles of expansion, crisis, and contraction in the European economy.52 On this view the expansion of the rural economy allowed landlords repeatedly to reduce the rate of prestation while still enjoying an increase in overall incomes. The falling rate of levy also encouraged further economic growth. On the other hand, the slowing or cessation of growth reduced the income of the landlords and provoked a response known variously as a rent offensive or a seigneurial reaction. Old impositions were increased and new ones were introduced in a short-sighted attempt to restore the status quo. Instead, the outcome was the disruption of rural production, growing resentment among the peasantry, and ultimately a dismal cycle of peasant uprisings, lordly repression, and economic decline. Perhaps the most helpful summary that can be made of the foregoing dispute is that the two approaches actually have a great deal in common.53 At issue is the extent to which the burdens imposed on the peasant by his overlord are to be seen as causes or consequences of the fluctuating health of the rural economy as a whole, but it would be misleading to present the matter as an either/or proposition. Adherents of both views are often willing to see seigneurial exactions and overpopulation as co-contributors to the economic malaise held to have beset Europe in the early seventeenth century. Moreover, irrespective of the factor to which primacy is accorded, the predicted sequence of events is virtually identical: a crisis of seigneurial incomes in the fifteenth century, a recovery in the sixteenth, and then a second crisis in the seventeenth century. It is the obsession with crisis with which I take issue. Whether inspired by Malthus, Marx, or both, almost all contributions to the discussion of landlord– tenant relations in early modern Europe are anchored in the notion of a perpetual susceptibility to crisis. More specifically, the early modern economy is regarded 51

52

53

This view is associated with the Annales school. See (in addition to the works cited above at note 9) Joseph Goy and Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie, eds. Prestations paysannes, dˆımes, rente foncière et mouvement de la production agricole a` l’époque préindustrielle (2 vols., Paris, 1982). This is the approach of most scholars inspired by Marx. Particularly influential has been Guy Bois, The Crisis of Feudalism: Economy and Society in Eastern Normandy c. 1300–1550 [English translation; translator not cited] (Cambridge, 1984). Peter Kriedte, “Spätmittelalterliche Agrarkrise oder Krise des Feudalismus?” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 7 (1981), pp. 42–68 is an extended review of the original 1976 French edition of Bois’ book from a German perspective. See also John E. Martin, Feudalism to Capitalism: Peasant and Landlord in English Agrarian Development (Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1983). An intense debate between Marxist and Malthusian interpretations of the early modern economy was sparked by Robert Brenner, “Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in PreIndustrial Europe,” Past and Present 70 (1976), pp. 30–75. His original essay, the responses of several critics, and Brenner’s 1982 rejoinder are reprinted in T. H. Ashton and C. H. E. Philpin, eds. The Brenner Debate (Cambridge, 1985).


133

as fundamentally self-defeating, since the very process of expansion sowed the seeds of future decline. At least at Ottobeuren, this was not the case. Naturally the interests of the Abbot and his subjects were on several issues decidedly at variance. It also goes without saying that debilitating short-term disasters of various sorts might dramatically shift the power balance between overlord and peasant, and that long-term fluctuations in seigneurial prestations are certainly in evidence. The point here is that for all its inner contradictions, the extractive relationship between the monastery and its subjects did not lurch from crisis to crisis under the of aegis of some self-destructive teleology. When catastrophe did ultimately come it was visited from without; it did not grow up from within. By comparison with its late medieval counterpart,54 the early modern German seigneurie has been the subject of little scholarly attention, at least in so far as its economic (as opposed to legal) history is concerned.55 Thus, although there is considerable evidence that both secular and ecclesiastical lords were experiencing serious financial difficulties in the early fifteenth century, the corresponding picture one hundred years later is frustratingly opaque. Given the widespread opinion that a seigneurial reaction lay behind the events of 1525 this is a particularly frustrating lacuna.56 The state of the monastery’s finances in the early sixteenth century is recorded in a pair of accounts from the years 1527/8 and 1528/9. The registers were apparently drawn up on the basis of separate accounts maintained by the cellarer, the “Kornmeister,” and others, and record receipts and disbursements grouped under various headings. The registers seem largely complete, but it is clear that one important source of income, namely those rents paid in cash, has been left out of the reckoning. Fortunately, a second account book has survived for the years 1536–45. Though less comprehensive than the older pair of registers, the later account does allow us to estimate cash rents for the years 1527/8 and 1528/9,57 permitting at least an approximation of the overall finances of the monastery (see Table 3.6) The financial picture revealed by the registers displays a number of interesting features, three of which seem worthy of particular attention. First, despite the common perception that most German landlords were hopelessly insolvent at the time of the Peasants’ War, the monastery of Ottobeuren seems to have been in stable financial health. True enough, the account for 1527/8 reveals a steep 54

55

56 57

The literature on the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries is enormous. A recent collection of investigations may be found in H. Patze, ed. Die Grundherrschaft im späten Mittelalter (2 vols., Sigmaringen, 1983). Important exceptions are Christian Heimpel, Die Entwicklung der Einnahmen und Ausgaben des Heiliggeistspitals zu Biberach an der Riß von 1500 bis 1630 (Stuttgart, 1966), and Rudolf Schlögl, Bauern, Krieg und Staat: Oberbayerische Bauernwirtschaft und frühmoderner Staat im 17. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1988). There is a classic statement in Blickle, The Revolution of 1525, pp. 71–3. Cash rents increased in a slow but steady and linear fashion between 1536 and 1545. I have extrapolated backwards to estimate the receipts for the late 1520s.

134


Table 3.6 Income of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1527/8 and 1528/9 1527/8

1528/9

Source

£ heller

%

£ heller

%

Grain sales Transfer fees Serfdom Wood, stone, charcoal, fish, cattle Tolls Fines Miscellaneous Estimated cash rents Total income Total expenditures Balance

2262.39 400.38 122.26 207.71 79.50 143.20 58.67 1739.26 5013.37 7763.53 −2750.16

45.1 8.0 2.4 4.1 1.6 2.9 1.2 34.7 100.0

3675.04 30.10 63.00 1187.57 103.30 0.00 0.00 1743.85 6802.86 6196.96 +605.90

54.0 0.4 0.9 17.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 25.6 100.0

Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Hefte 1 and 3

deficit of £2750 5 ß, but this was largely due to an extraordinary charge of £1791 16 ß 2 d subsequently added to the account. Moreover, the account for 1528/9 records a healthy surplus of £605 18 ß. In any case, it is hard to imagine how the monastery could have managed so many territorial acquisitions in the sixteenth century – a series of vineyards on the lake of Constance in 1522–34, the village of Rummeltshausen in 1564, the Maierhof in Sontheim in 1578, and the village of Ungerhausen in 1593 to name only the most important58 – had it not been in robust financial shape. Second, the monies derived from charges associated with serfdom – manumissions, heriots, and Ungenossame, or fines for marriages to other lords’ serfs – made a derisory proportion of the monastery’s income: 2.4 percent in 1527/8 and 0.9 percent in 1528/9. Again, this flies in the face of the often encountered assertion that serfdom was an important financial prop for landlords in the German southwest.59 The most striking feature of the Ottobeuren accounts, however, is the fact that so little of the monks’ income was originally in the form of cash. The bulk of their receipts – 49.2 percent in 1527/8 and fully 71.5 percent in 1528/9 – came from the sale of agricultural products, chiefly grain.60 The monastery was thus protected from the ravages of inflation, since the sixteenth-century price revolution which impoverished so many landlords was driven for the most part by increases in the price of grain. 58 59 60

Heider, “Grundherrschaft und Landeshoheit,” p. 68; Franz Ludwig Baumann, Geschichte des Allgäus (4 vols., Kempten, 1883–94; repr. Aalen, 1971–3), Vol. III: 1517–1802, p. 266. Claudia Ulbricht, Leibherrschaft am Oberrhein im Spätmittelalter (Göttingen, 1979), pp. 294–8. The same has been noted for the lower nobility of the German southwest by Kurt Anderman, “Grundherrschaft des spätmittelalterlichen Niederadels in Südwest-deutschland,” Blätter für Deutsche Landesgeschichte N. F. 127 (1991), pp. 145–90.


Gült

(47.2%)

Tithe

(39.8%)

Demesne

(9.4%)

Mills

(3.6%)

135

Figure 3.8 Grain revenues of the monastery of Ottobeuren by source, 1536 Source: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 3

What was the source of these grain receipts which formed the bulk of the monastery’s revenue? The two older registers are silent on this matter, but clarification may be had from the later account book. As is shown by Figure 3.8, very little of this grain – less than a tenth – was produced on the monastic demesne lands. Instead, like most south German landlords the monks had largely given up direct farming, preferring to rely on rents collected from peasant tenants.61 The monks were careful, however, never to commute these grain rents into cash payments, and continued to collect them in grain until the Abbot’s lordship was dissolved in 1803. Together with the tithe, rye and oat rents known as Gült made up almost 90 percent of the monastery’s grain revenues in 1536. Although the monastery derived at least half of its income from the sale of grain, not all of the total grain receipts were actually sold on the market. For although the monks sold some 1,200 malter (≈ 2,600 hectoliters) of grain in 1528/9, if the records of the later 1530s are any indication their total receipts must have been at least 3,000 malter (≈ 6,500 hectoliters). Three thousand malter of grain were enough to feed at least a third of the monastery’s subjects for a full year. What kind of a burden did the extraction of so much grain impose on the peasantry? Ever since David Sabean’s pioneering 1972 monograph on the Swabian cloister of Weingarten,62 there has been considerable interest in attempting to 61

62

The prominence of rent income from life-term or hereditary tenants is a distinctive feature of the German seigneurie. French and English landlords relied much more heavily on short-term leases. See Eberhard Weiss, “Ergebnisse eines Vergleichs der grundherrschaftlichen Strukturen Deutschlands und Frankreichs vom 13. bis zum Ausgang des 18. Jahrhunderts,” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 57 (1970), pp. 1–14 and J. P. Cooper, “In Search of Agrarian Capitalism” in Aston and Philpin, eds., The Brenner Debate, pp. 161–78. David W. Sabean, Landbesitz und Gesellschaft am Vorabend des Bauernkriegs: eine Studie der sozialen Verhältnisse im südlichen Oberschwaben in den Jahren von 1525 (Stuttgart, 1972).

136


measure the economic weight of seigneurialism on the German peasantry. The typical point of departure is an Urbar, a land cadastre describing the physical area of the peasant holdings and the annual charges to which they were subject. To the annual charges is usually added the Erdschatz, or entry fine, levied at the admission of a new tenant, prorated over the presumed length of tenure. A further 10 percent of the harvest is deducted to cover the payment of the ecclesiastical tithe. The result is a reasonably accurate estimate of the payments a peasant would make to his various overlords each year. Calculating the peasant’s income is a less exact proposition. The conventional approach is to arrive at an estimate for grain yields per unit of surface area and then to apply this figure to the arable land described in the cadastre (strictly speaking the yield estimate is applied to only two-thirds of the arable surface area, one third of the land was left fallow each year in the three-field rotation system commonly practiced in the German countryside). Given the character of the surviving sixteenth-century sources, a comparison of the estimated harvest with the aggregated rents and other charges is as close an estimate of the burden of seigneurialism as is possible. The method employed here is different only in minor detail. This said, it serves no purpose to overlook the limitations of the approach outlined above. In terms of the charges, it should be pointed out that an Urbar only lists those charges which were both regular and imposed in right of the lord’s jurisdiction over the land and its tenants (a right commonly referred to as Grundherrschaft). Charges arising from serfdom (manumissions, heriots, etc.) and those levied only sporadically (e.g. territorial taxes) are perforce left out of the debit side of the equation. These shortcomings are hardly damning, but omissions on the credit side are much more serious. First of all, an Urbar only describes land held of the lord. Allodial land, or freies Eigen as it was known, made up only a small proportion of the total surface area in most of Upper Swabia,63 but those freeholds which did exist had a value completely out of proportion to their physical extent. The description in the Urbar thus understates the amount of land at the peasant’s disposal. More significantly, before the advent of more detailed tax books in the seventeenth century, it is impossible even to estimate any source of income apart from the grain harvest. The produce of the intensely worked gardens escapes our purview, as does the income from animal husbandry. This last lacuna is particularly unfortunate, since investigations of the later seventeenth century have shown that at that time the south German peasantry derived some 30–45 percent of its income from the sale of cattle.64 In sum, then, like almost all efforts of historical quantification the attempt to measure the burden of sixteenth-century seigneurialism produces at best a 63 64

Peter Blickle, “Bäuerliches Eigen im Allgäu,” Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 17, 1 (1969), pp. 57–78. Schlögl, Bauern, Krieg und Staat, pp. 383–5.


137

qualified estimate. Nevertheless, the value of these estimates remains considerable. Since the preponderance of the unfathomable elements remains on the credit side of our equation, we can know that our results are in all likelihood a maximum estimate of the proportion of the peasant’s income extracted by the landlord. At Ottobeuren the available records are somewhat different from those normally used for an investigation of seigneurialism. Regrettably, no Urbar has survived from the sixteenth century. Instead, we are obliged to fall back on a series of Gültbücher, or rent rolls, which list the grain payments due from each of the tenants,65 but record neither the annual cash rents, the entry fine or Erdschatz, nor a description of the dimensions of the holding. It turns out, however, that almost all of this information is available from other sources. The monastery accounts for 1536–45 record the annual cash rents due from most of the villages (although the total is not broken down for each tenant), and a virtually complete record of the entry fines for the period 1530–1603 has been preserved in a pair of Erdschatzbücher.66 An aggregate of the seigneurial charges at the village level may thus be fairly easily put together. Reconstructing the harvest proves to be the easiest gap to fill. It is not possible to estimate each tenant’s individual harvest, but with the help of the now familiar tithe records a direct estimate of the grain produced by the village as a whole, allodial lands included, is readily available. The results of these various calculations are displayed in Table 3.7.67 The total burden imposed on the peasantry ranged from 22 to 27 percent of the grain harvest. Was this a great deal? A levy between a fifth and a quarter was completely unremarkable by comparison with seigneurial levies elsewhere in southern Germany.68 The burden was almost certainly resented, but the amount extracted hardly seems confiscatory; it certainly left enough for the village to meet its nutritional needs, not to mention the unknowable quantum of income from other sources. Furthermore, as has already been seen in chapter 1, the 65 67

68

66 StAA, KL Ottobeuren 26–7. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29–30. I have provided estimates only for those settlements in which the monastery was the exclusive landlord. Until 1588 one of the farms in Attenhausen was under the landlordship of the so-called ‘lower’ hospital in the nearby city of Memmingen. I have taken the rent for this farm from the abstract of the hospital’s 1572 rent roll in Hannes Lambacher, Das Spital der Reichsstadt Memmingen (Kempten, 1991), pp. 162–8. See also Blickle, Memmingen, p. 66. On the lands of the cloister of Weingarten total prestations represented 28 percent of the harvest of the average farm in 1531. Sabean, Landbesitz und Gesellschaft, pp. 62–3. Just south of Ottobeuren in the lordship of Kronburg, seigneurial dues made up 26.9 percent of the entire harvest in 1529–34. Since the more numerous smaller farms bore a heavier proportional burden, the average farm paid 31.5 percent of its harvest. Burkhard Asmuss, “Das Einkommen der Bauern in der Herrschaft Kronburg im frühen 16. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte 43, 1 (1980), pp. 45–91. In the north Swabian region of the Hesselberg, Gabler estimates that in 1535 dues consumed 18–26 percent of the harvest on a large farm and 14–16 percent on a small one. A. Gabler, “Die wirtschaftliche Lage des Bauerntums im Hesselberggebiet des 16. Jahrhunderts,” Schwäbische Blätter 14, 3 (1963), pp. 73–98.

138


Table 3.7 Seigneurial dues as a proportion (%) of the harvesta at Ottobeuren, 1544 Settlement

Gült

Cash rent

Tithe

Erdschatz

Total

Attenhausen Böhen Frechenrieden Hawangen-Moosbach Niederdorf Hamlets of Ottobeuren parish

10.8 6.7 9.1 10.0 14.0 4.1

2.4 4.3 3.7 2.0? 1.9 2.0?

10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.0

23.8 21.6 23.4 22.7? 26.5 17.1?

a Harvest estimated from the mean tithe, 1540–9 Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 27, 29, 34, 541(Heft 3); KA Ottobeuren 245; Lambacher, Das Spital der Reichsstadt Memmingen, pp. 162–8

Table 3.8 Finances of the monastery of Ottobeuren in gulden, 1527/8–1620/1 Year

Income

Expenditure

Nominal balance

Deflated balance

1527/8 1528/9 1619/20 1620/1

2864.73 3887.30 40493.41 43848.46

4436.30 3541.12 28187.15 27137.03

−1571.57 +346.18 +12306.26 +16711.43

−1571.57 +346.18 7180.65 9751.05

Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Hefte 1 and 7; StadtA MM D Folioband 99, D 102/1a–1b; Wolf, Reichsstädte in Kriegszeiten, Table 82, p. 276

burden of seigneurialism at Ottobeuren was almost entirely borne by those most able to do so. But if the evidence of the 1530s and 1540s will not support the notion of an impending crisis, what of the later period? What became of the stable equilibrium of the post-Peasants’ War period after several generations of demographic flux and galloping inflation? Here the best place to begin is with an extremely detailed account of the monastery’s finances drawn up for the years 1619/20 and 1620/1 (see Table 3.8). When compared with the two older accounts for 1527/8 and 1528/9 it is clear that a number of major changes have taken place. First of all, even after adjusting for the intervening surge in prices, the monastery’s revenues have increased more than eight-fold. Still more significantly, whereas in the 1520s the monks were just able to cover their expenses with their income, by the 1620s the monastery was racking up surpluses of 12,000–16,000 gulden, a sum greater than their entire revenue in the earlier period. Finally, as is clear from Figure 3.9, the composition of the monastery’s income had undergone a dramatic transformation.

A crisis of numbers? (c. 1560–c. 1630) 1527/9

139

1619/21 Grain Entry fines Serfdom Wood, cattle, etc. Cash rents Taxes Excise Cash and loans Miscellaneous

Cash and loans New in 1619/21

Excise

Taxes

Figure 3.9 Composition of the revenues of the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1527/9 and 1619/21 Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Hefte 1 and 7

Two main tendencies had shaped the new profile of the monastery’s income. The first was a gradual accumulation of new sources of revenue. The Umgeld, or excise tax on wine, was first instituted in 1564 when Abbot Caspar Kindelmann secured an imperial privilege authorizing him to collect a 1/13 (7.7 percent) levy on all the wine sold throughout the monastery lands. Abbot Caspar was shrewd enough simultaneously to grant a monopoly on wine sales to the innkeepers responsible for the payment of the excise (it had previously been legal for anyone to sell wine out of his house), thereby ensuring their co-operation.69 In 1601 Abbot Alexander Sauter had the market rights of the Markt Ottobeuren reconfirmed by Emperor Rudolf II, and then promptly began collecting a toll on all goods sold in the marketplace.70 The introduction of annual property taxes cannot be dated precisely, although it seems to have fallen sometime between 1603 and 1619.71 Whatever the case may be, by the 1620s the monastery had begun compiling massive surveys of every piece of land and head of livestock in its territory. A new survey was completed every three to four years72 and the 69 70 71

72

Maurus Feyerabend, Des ehemaligen Reichsstiftes Ottenbeuren, Benediktiner Ordens in Schwaben, sämmtliche Jahrbücher (4 vols., Ottobeuren, 1813–16), Vol. III, pp. 216–19. Ibid., pp. 297–8. The tolls are listed in the Market Ordinance of 5 August 1601 copied in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, Document 289V, ff. 350v–358v. During the later sixteenth century, the subjects of the monastery were periodically called upon to pay the so-called ‘Turk taxes’ to finance the expeditions of the Holy Roman Emperor against the Ottoman Turks. A six-year Turk tax was levied in 1577, and again in 1594. A third Turk tax was levied in 1603, and all small portions of all three tax registers are abstracted in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 4, ff. 62v–77r. In many German territories, these periodic Turk taxes were transmuted into regular taxes paid to the territorial overlord (see Winfried Schulze, Reich und Türkengefahr im späten 16. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1978), pp. 278–9, 299–301, 367–8); this may also have happened at Ottobeuren. Whatever the case may have been, the account of 1619/20 records property taxes as a regular impost. Surveys from 1620/1, 1624, and 1627 are preserved in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 102–4. Post-war records document the existence of a 1630 tax survey, but this manuscript seems to have since been lost.

140


net wealth of the peasantry (i.e. gross wealth minus debts) was taxed at the rate of 1 percent.73 The second change in the composition of the monastery’s income was a shift from income in kind to income in cash. Income in kind averaged 62.1 percent of total income in 1527/8 and 1528/9; by 1619/20–1620/1 the proportion had fallen to 32.4 percent. In part this was simply a result of the monastery’s prosperity. Accumulated surpluses in the form of loans or cash on hand made up 28 percent of total income in 1620/1. It is worth pointing out, however, that all of the new sources of revenue were collected in cash, and that together the excise and property taxes made up a fifth of the monastery’s total revenues. It goes without saying that the new prestations increased the burden on the peasantry. It is also clear that some of the older obligations became more onerous over the course of the sixteenth century. Chief among these were the entry fines for Gotteshaus properties, the level of which quintupled in real terms between 1530 and 1620. On the other hand, although the nominal value of cash rents collected from the peasantry increased by some 94.6 percent between 1544 and 1619, the price increase over the same period was greater still, such that the real value of the cash rents actually declined.74 As for the grain rents which constituted the core of the monastery’s income in the late 1520s, they remained for all intents and purposes unchanged between 1544 and 1621.75 The tithe remained by definition the same. The net effect of these various shifts is presented in Table 3.9,76 and the pattern is fairly surprising. Although the monastery had clearly enriched itself at the expense of the subject population, the burden of seigneurialism had risen only slightly, from 20–25 percent of the harvest in 1544 to 26–30 percent in 1621. It must be said that in so far as the new impositions did not spare the poorer members of the village community in the manner of Erdschatz and Korngült, the proportional increase in the burden imposed on the poor must have been still greater than is suggested by a comparison of Tables 3.7 and 3.9. Nevertheless, the figure of 26–30 percent applies primarily to the villages; in the hamlets the burden was only a little more than 20 percent. It should also be re-emphasized 73

74 75 76

The rate of taxation is nowhere formally proclaimed; the 1 percent rate emerges from a comparison with the net wealth of the peasantry as surveyed in 1620 and the tax receipts for 1620/1. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 102, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 7. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Hefte 1, 3, and 7; StadtA MM D Folioband 99, D 102/1a–1b; Thomas Wolf, Reichsstädte in Kriegszeiten, Table 82, p. 276. Compare StAA, KL Ottobeuren 29 (1544) with KL Ottobeuren 225, ff. 76r–103v (1621). Two of the calculations in this table require some explanation. There are no sources recording payments of cash rents or entry fines at the level of the individual settlement during the 1620s; we have only the receipts from the monastery lands as a whole in the accounts of 1619/20 and 1620/1. Cash rents have therefore been estimated by applying the overall rate of increase between 1544 and 1620/1 to the village-level totals previously calculated for 1544. Entry fine figures have been estimated at the village level by assigning a fraction of the total receipts to each settlement on the basis of the number of households reported in the 1620 tax survey.


141

Table 3.9 Seigneurial dues as a proportion (%) of the harvest at Ottobeuren, 1621 Settlement

Gült

Cash rent

Tithe

Erdschatz

Taxes

Total

Attenhausen Böhen Frechenrieden Hawangen-Moosbach Niederdorf Hamlets of Ottobeuren parish

10.8 6.2 9.4 9.8 14.6 2.8

1.6 2.7 2.5 2.0? 1.2 1.5?

10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

1.2 2.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0

3.4 6.6 3.6 3.4 4.7 6.2

27.0 27.8 26.8 26.4? 31.5 21.5?

Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 40, 102, 225, 541, Hefte 3 and 7

that the harvest was by no means the only source of income for the Ottobeuren peasantry. Furthermore, the “grain equivalent” of seigneurialism should not be seen as a vanished proportion of the harvest. The monastery was happy, indeed eager to resell the grain it collected in rents and tithes.77 Since most peasants were not self-sufficient in grain, they would have had to purchase or barter for the larger part of their subsistence anyway. Whether acquired from a wealthy neighbor directly, or indirectly when the monks resold that same neighbor’s Korngült, the grain tasted the same. Finally, it would be misleading in the extreme to depict the influence of the monastery as exclusively baleful. The monks may have collected 2,245 gulden in excise taxes from the peasantry in 1620, but they also paid out some 2,351 gulden in wages to everyone from carters and masons to seamstresses and common day laborers. The monastery also spent 1,867 gulden on victuals (lard, fish, cattle, herbs, etc.),78 much of which was probably purchased from its own subjects. Thus, if in consequence of the transformation of its finances the monastery had become a heavier if by no means ruinous burden to the peasantry, it had also become a more generous employer and a more lucrative market. Perhaps the best way to gain an overview of the welter of detail preserved in the account books and rent rolls is to turn to another class of records altogether: the Baudingbücher. The Bauding was an annual assembly of the village population where the peasants reaffirmed their loyalty to the Abbot. At the same time the peasants’ debts to the monastery were entered in a series of volumes known as Baudingbücher.79 These books record debts of all kinds: rent arrears, outstanding Erdschatz payments, even cash advances made by the monastery to its subjects. 77 78

According to the granary accounts, the monastery sold a total of 1,260 malter in 1586/7, 2,107 in 1614/15, and 2,219 in 1621/2. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 224, Hefte 1 and 6; KL Ottobeuren 225. 79 StAA, KL Ottobeuren 400–34, 550–77. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 7.

142


600.0 Nominal 500.0

Deflated

400.0

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0 1529 1530 1538 1543 1558 1567 1588 1593 1598 1603 1613 1616 1620 1621 1623

Figure 3.10 Debts of the peasantry to the monastery of Ottobeuren, 1529–1623 Notes: 1538 = 100 Source: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 403, 409, 417, 424, 433, 550, 555, 558, 559, 565, 568, 570, 571; StadtA MM D Folioband 99, D 102/1a-1b; Wolf, Reichsstädte in Kriegszeiten, Table 82, p. 276

That these debts should have existed at all is neither surprising nor in and of itself a sign that the peasantry was overburdened. Since the rural economy was only partially monetized, it was common practice for large cash prestations such as Erdschatz to be paid to the monastery in installments over three or four years. And given the extreme variability of the harvest, it often also happened that the payment of rents due in a bad year was postponed in anticipation of a more bountiful harvest in the following year. The absolute level of short-term debt is thus a rather ambiguous piece of information. On the other hand, the long-term movement of debt in the Baudingbücher is a valuable indicator of the ability of the Ottobeuren peasantry to support the weight of the Abbot’s lordship. Figure 3.10 summarizes the trend of peasant debt to the monastery in the century after the Peasants’ War. As may be expected, the nominal level of debt increased dramatically as a series of new impositions were introduced at the end of the sixteenth century. The Baudingbücher do not always itemize the source of every debt, but it is interesting to note that in 1603, fully half of the value of the total debt consisted of outstanding entry fines.80 This dramatic increase in the nominal level of peasant debt is, however, only part of the story. For although debt increased to 1603, thereafter it fell dramatically, such that peasant indebtedness to the monastery in the 1620s was lower than it had been 80

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 560.


143

at any time since the late 1580s. More importantly, the real level of peasant debt followed a decidedly different pattern. After deflating for increases in the price of grain, it turns out that peasant indebtedness remained remarkably stable over time. The surge at the very end of the sixteenth century reveals itself as a short-term aberration; by the early 1620s debt levels were actually lower than they had been a century earlier. Be that as it may, the burden of lordship was more than mere prestation, and if the monks were collecting only slightly more of the peasant’s harvest in the early seventeenth century, they were collecting vastly more information about his or her household in the process. The introduction by 1620 of comprehensive triennial tax surveys has already been noted. During the same period an equally striking intensification of oversight would reinvigorate the institution of serfdom. Given the virulence of complaint about servile status during the Peasants’ War of 1524/5, we might be forgiven the assumption that the decades leading up to the revolt had seen an effort by the Abbots to maximize their claims as Leibherren, or bond lords.81 In fact, the monastery had then taken a rather lackadaisical approach to these rights. The single surviving serf roll from this era (dating to 1486/7) records only serfs of the monastery, excluding both free peasants and the serfs of other lords, while the perquisites of serfdom were collected with similar insouciance. In 1527/8 and 1528/9, for example, an annual average of only four exogamous marriage fees and seven death duties were taken from a subject population of almost 1,200 households.82 From the mid-sixteenth century, by contrast, the administrative record becomes much denser. Complete serf rolls listing all of the inhabitants (men, women, and children) of the monastery lands irrespective of legal status were compiled in 1548, 1556, 1564, and 1586. Average annual collections of exogamous marriage fees and death duties accordingly rose to fifteen and seventythree respectively in 1586/7–1589/90.83 Pressure was brought to bear on free peasants and serfs of other lords, whether locals84 or immigrants,85 to become 81 82 83 84

85

As seems to have been the case in several other Swabian lordships. For a classic statement of the argument, see Blickle, Revolution of 1525, pp. 29–35. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 1, ff. 9r–v, 56v. The 1525 tax register records a total of 1,155 households. Ibid., Heft 2. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 583, Hefte 4–7. Thus the 1586 serf roll notes in the village of Niederrieden that Johann, stepson of Barthlome Maier, “shall give himself [in serfdom] to the monastery if he wishes to live in Niederrieden.” Similarly StAA, KL Ottobeuren 918, ff. 42r [20 June 1580] and 69v [15 Dec. 1580], KL Ottobeuren 903, ff. 281r–282r [8 Jan. 1607], KL Ottobeuren 904, f. 77r [1 Nov. 1608] and 210r [11 Aug. 1610]; see Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564,” pp. 11, 73, for cases of free Ottobeuren subjects who yielded themselves to gain tenancy of a Gotteshausrecht bathhouse and Erblehen Hof. See the case of Conrad Höltzlin of Rummeltshausen, who became a monastery serf the same day he purchased his father-in-law’s Erblehen Hof in Egg for 2,800 fl. StAA, KL Ottobeuren

144


Ottobeuren serfs, often as a condition of tenancy. The monks were even willing to negotiate the legal freedom of some of a peasant’s children if he “yielded his spouse” (and the remaining children) to the monastery.86 Finally, between 1564 and 1578 the monks redacted a series of treaties with the Prince-Abbot of Kempten, the Bishop of Augsburg, and the Marshall of Pappenheim, yielding jurisdiction over Ottobeuren serfs outside the Abbot’s dominion in exchange for rights over “foreign” serfs within the monastery lands.87 The end result was the creation of a legally uniform subject population.88 In the village of Wolfertschwenden, for example, the proportion of householders who were monastery serfs rose from 38.1 percent in 1564 to 73.0 percent in 1586 to 81.8 percent in 1621/2,89 while in the thirty-three hamlets of Ottobeuren parish, the proportion leaped from 35.2 percent in 1564 to 82.6 percent in 1601/2 to 93.5 percent in 1627/8.90 So complete had the monastery’s servile jurisdiction become that after 1586, the monks ceased to compile elaborate serf rolls of the entire population, and instead contented themselves with simple “bond-chicken registers,” which merely listed servile household heads. Income from serfdom remained a tiny fraction (3.1 percent in 1620)91 of overall revenues, but information-intensive lordship of this sort was driven by a desire not simply (or even primarily) to increase the monastery’s “take” from the peasantry, but more importantly to manage the claims (and exercise the power) of lordship more efficiently. Indeed, contemporary German political tracts92 ranging from Georg Obrecht’s Policey Ordnung und Constitution (1608) to Christoph Besold’s De Aerario (1620) to Kaspar Klock’s Tractatus de Contributionibus (1634) all enjoined rulers regularly to make detailed surveys of the

86

87 88

89

90

91 92

901, ff. 7v–8r, 9r [28 Feb. 1583]. For the enserfment of other immigrants, see ibid., ff. 3r [22 Jan. 1583], 7v–8r and 9r [28 Feb. 1583] and 11r [25 Feb. 1583]. This is clear from the marginal notes to the 1564 serf roll. Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564,” pp. 39, 45, 56, 60, 64, 68. For the notarized “yielding” of immigrant spouses, see also StAA, KL Ottobeuren 918, ff. 46r [19 July 1580] and 53r [30 Oct. 1580]. Heider, “Grundherrschaft und Landeshoheit,” pp. 86–7. The seminal work on this process is Peter Blickle, “Leibeigenschaft als Instrument der Territorialpolitik im Allgäu” in H. Haushofer and W. A. Boelcke, eds., Wege und Forschungen der Agrargeschichte: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Günther Franz (Frankfurt a.M., 1967), pp. 51–66. Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564,” pp. 86–9; StAA, KL Ottobeuren 601-II, ff. 116r–121v; KL Ottobeuren 491-I, Heft 4, ff. 21v–22r; KL Ottobeuren 102, ff. 162r–175v; KL Ottobeuren 491-II, Heft 26, ff. 9v–10r. Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564,” pp. 11–27; StAA, KL Ottobeuren 688-I, Hefte 7–8; KL Ottobeuren 681, Hefte 1–2; KL Ottobeuren 491-I, Heft 10, ff. 2r–7v; KL Ottobeuren 104, ff. 34r–92r; KL Ottobeuren 491-III, Heft 33, ff. 2r–8r. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 541, Heft 7. Most of these works were heavily influenced by the Flemish scholar Justus Lipsius’ Politicorum Libri Sex (1589), which went through twenty-seven Latin editions by 1650, and was translated ¨ into German in 1599 and again in 1618. Gerhard Ostreich, Antiker Geist und moderner Staat bei Justus Lipsius, 1547–1606 (Göttingen, 1989), pp. 116, 138–40, 195–217.


145

wealth, status, and numbers of their subjects. The ‘fiscal census’ was promoted as an indispensable tool of good government, guarding against destructive overtaxation of the citizenry, and promoting good will and unity through uniform and equitable imposition.93 For its part, the Ottobeuren peasantry was rather less enthusiastic. Peasants often claimed to be free in order to escape the fees associated with serfdom,94 and resentment over the unprecedented increase in jural and fiscal surveillance on several occasions culminated in prosecution and even violence.95 Thus far, our investigations of the health of the rural economy at Ottobeuren has produced a set of distressingly incongruous results. There is no gainsaying the unspectacular level of agricultural productivity in this period. That a long wave of population growth came to a decisive halt in the last third of the sixteenth century is similarly undeniable. At the same time, however, it seems clear that the demographic system was not regulated by mortality. There is unequivocal evidence of a substantial and even slowly growing agricultural surplus. Finally, the increase in the monastery’s exactions was borne manageably (if not cheerfully) by its subjects. It is hard, in other words, to discern the traditional production crisis amidst this evidence, but it is equally hard to avoid the conclusion that some kind of structural constraint had come into play. For a clearer understanding of the nature of this constraint, we need to take a closer look at the process of agricultural production. What we will find is that even if the monastery lands as a whole produced an agricultural surplus, this was not true of the majority of individual households. As was seen in chapter 1, significant social stratification between rich and poor was already obvious by the early sixteenth century. Over the course of the next hundred years, the gap only widened further (see Figure 3.11). Since land and buildings were the most important constituents of taxable wealth, this trend can only have meant that an increasing proportion of the population lacked the productive resources to feed itself directly. How big was this proportion? Given the documentation at our disposal, the only way to estimate household self-sufficiency is by reconstructing the relation between agricultural production and cultivated area. There are three ways to do 93 94

95

Wilhelm Röscher, Geschichte der National-Oekonomik in Deutschland (Munich, 1874), pp. 150– 8, 194–200, 216. Appended to the receipt of a 3 fl. death duty from the estate of Johann Hueber of Sontheim is “Nota: claimed to be free.” StAA, KL Ottobeuren 583, Heft 5, f. 3v [3 Dec. 1587]. Marginal notes in the 1564 serf roll indicate that a number of peasants rejected the servile status ascribed to them. Dertsch, “Das Einwohnerbuch des Ottobeurer Klosterstaats 1564,” pp. 70, 78. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 587-II, Heft 14 (1586/7): Hans Aÿchele of Böhen “criminally resisted the Amman and Vierer when taxes were collected.” Ibid., Heft 21 (1601/2): Brosi Weckerlin of Benningen did not declare 400 fl. worth of property for taxation “and uttered idle talk about it.” Görg Steur of Frechenrieden “when asked to pay his wife’s death duty by the Pittel did strike him right in the face.”

146

the peasants of ottobeuren 100.0 1525

80.0

1620 60.0 % of wealth 40.0

20.0

0.0 0.0

20.0

40.0 60.0 % of households

80.0

100.0

Figure 3.11 Distribution of taxable wealth in nine Ottobeuren villages, 1525 and 1620 Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 102 and 541 (2)

this. As we have seen that agricultural productivity increased only marginally at Ottobeuren between the seventeenth and mid-nineteenth centuries, the easiest method is to adopt the figures reported in the Bavarian agricultural census of 1863.96 In that year, the rye harvest in the Bezirksamt Memmingen (where the former monastery lands were located) was 18.8 hectoliters per hectare. Correcting for the slight increase in yield ratios between 1637 (5.0:1)97 and 1863 (5.49:1) reduces our estimated early modern rye harvest to 17.13 hl/ha. The 1863 oat harvest was 27.04 hl/ha; there seems to have been no increase in the yield ratio of this grain since the seventeenth-century. A second approach, based entirely on seventeenth-century figures, is to compare the tithe receipts from each village with the arable surface area reported in a massive 1620 tax survey. The results are summarized in Table 3.10; the average yield from eight villages comes to 2.45 malter/jauchert for all grains. After adjusting for harvest composition98 we arrive at a rye harvest equivalent of 2.89 malter/jauchert or 14.92 hl/ha. For oats the corresponding figures are 2.24 malter/jauchert and 23.23 hl/ha. A third estimate comes from a series of documents generated by the monastery’s purchase of various properties in Oberwesterheim and Sontheim 96 97 98

Von Hermann, Die Ernten im Königreich Bayern. Earlier harvest statistics do exist, but they are not available at the district level before 1863. Taken from StAA, KL Ottobeuren 202, ff. 91v–98v. Based on the 1621 composition of tithe receipts in StAA, KL Ottobeuren 225, ff. 104v–109v.


147

Table 3.10 Estimated yields in eight Ottobeuren villages, c. 1620 Village

Arable 1620 (jauchert)

Mean tithe 1615–24 (malter)

Yield (malter/jauchert)

Attenhausen Egg Frechenrieden Günz Hawangen Niederdorf Rummeltshausen Sontheim Total

611.50 765.50 540.00 453.75 1185.25 461.62 313.00 888.00 5218.62

109.17 135.54 95.78 73.44 178.97 53.73 55.88 150.00 852.51

2.68 2.66 2.66 2.43 2.26 1.75 2.68 2.53 2.45

Sources: StAA, KL Ottobeuren 40, 102; KA Ottobeuren 343, Document no. 5

from the ‘Lower’ hospital in the city of Memmingen.99 In 1655 the hospital declared the value of the offering at thirty thousand gulden, but the monks were wary of this figure. After consulting with the Kastenvogt, or bailiff, of their neighbor the Prince-Abbot of Kempten, the monks decided to conduct their own assessment. Since one of the items under consideration was the right to collect the tithe in Sontheim, the mayors of Sontheim and Westerheim were questioned in the summer of 1663 about the average yield of the tithe in the two villages. According to the Amman of Sontheim,100 the tithe from a jauchert of rye or barley could be as high as twelve metzen, but a tithe of eight, nine, or ten metzen was the norm. With oats and spelt a larger tithe could be expected: normally nine to ten and exceptionally fourteen metzen per jauchert. In Westerheim the reported rye yields were virtually identical: the tithe averaged nine or ten metzen per jauchert with a maximum of twelve. Spelt and oat yields seem to have been higher than in Sontheim, averaging ten to twelve metzen per jauchert. A rye tithe of nine to ten metzen implies of yield of between 2.813 and 3.125 malter/jauchert or 14.5–16.1 hl/ha. The equivalents of a ten to eleven metzen oat tithe are 1.471 to 1.618 malter per jauchert and 15.2–16.7 hl/ha. None of these estimates is definitive on its own, but at least with rye a definite pattern emerges. The yields are clustered around 2.9 malter per jauchert or 15 hectoliters per hectare, which will be taken here as the average yield. The estimates are less uniform when it comes to oats and spelt. It appears, however, that the 1663 reports for oats and spelt are underestimates, since the Amman of Sontheim declared the maximum tithe yield for spelt as fourteen metzen per jauchert when we know it to have been fifteen in 1655. Furthermore, careful 99 100

StAA, KA Ottobeuren 343. The Kastenvogt’s report (Document no. 3) is dated 1656. Ibid., Document no. 12 [2 June 1663].

148


comparison of the Sontheim tithe receipts for the years 1663–70101 with the arable surface area recorded in a 1669 tax survey102 produces an estimated average oat harvest of 2.013 malter per jauchert or 20.84 hl/ha. In light of these discrepancies, we shall assume that the average oat yield was closer to 2.0 malter per jauchert or 20.7 hectoliters per hectare. Given these grain yields, how much land did a peasant household need in order to feed itself? Earlier in this chapter, the size of the average household was estimated at 4.71 persons, which in terms of consumption requirements may be likened to a family of two adults and three children. Let us assign our household the now familiar amount of 1.5 malter of grain per capita per year. The household must be able to pay the tithe on the harvest, meet its nutritional needs, and still have enough seed corn for the next year. These constraints imply a harvest no smaller than 10.243 malter. If it is assumed that the grain crop was equally composed of oats and rye, and that one third of the land had to lie fallow each year, we arrive at a minimum holding size of about 6.5 jauchert (= 2.75 hectares)103 of arable land. Of course, this allows for no servants, no horses or other grain-eating livestock, and no seigneurial obligations beyond the tithe, but for the poor these conditions usually obtained. The earliest survey of landholding in the entirety of the Abbot’s dominions is the tax survey of 1620. This document, a ponderous volume of some 400 folios, allows us to disaggregate the village population into three groups. The first consists of those households holding less than 6.5 jauchert of arable land, which households cannot have been self-sufficient in grain. A second group, made up of households holding between 6.5 and 13 jauchert, may be considered to have been normally self-sufficient, but not immune to a serious crop failure. Households holding more than 13 jauchert would regularly have harvested considerable surpluses. These comfortable households, which actually stood to profit from the high prices associated with bad harvests, make up the third group. Table 3.11 summarizes the distribution of arable land in the Ottobeuren villages in 1620, broken down into the above three categories. The overwhelming majority of households held less than the minimum 6.5 jauchert of land. Since the villages account for some 63.3 percent of the households listed in the 1620 survey, it seems clear that most Ottobeuren peasants did not have enough land to feed themselves, and therefore could survive only by obtaining grain from others. 101 102

103

StAA, KL Ottobeuren 55. StAA, KL Ottobeuren 105, ff. 334r–362v. I have assumed that the proportion of the total arable devoted to oats in 1669 was the same as the proportion given for 1655 in StAA, KA Ottobeuren 343, Document no. 2. This figure is almost identical with the estimate reached by Rainer Beck (2.70 hectares) of the minimum holding size needed by a family of five in Upper Bavaria in c. 1720. Beck, Naturale ¨ Okonomie, pp. 176–85.


149

Table 3.11 Arable land per household in the Ottobeuren villages, 1620 Number of households holding Village

The Peasants of Ottobeuren, 1487-1726: A Rural Society in Early Modern Europe (Past and Present Publications)

Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief (Past and Present Publications)

Biology, Medicine and Society 1840-1940 (Past and Present Publications)

The Origins of the English Gentry (Past and Present Publications)

The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe

Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama under the Early Stuarts (Past and Present Publications)

The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe

Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama under the Early Stuarts (Past and Present Publications)

Early Modern European Society

From Slavery to Feudalism in South-Western Europe (Past and Present Publications)

The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe

The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe

Warfare and Society in Europe: 1898 to the Present

The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe

Vico and the Transformation of Rhetoric in Early Modern Europe

Past, Present, and Fu

Climates: Past and Present

Past, Present and Future

Poems of the Past and the Present

Poems Of The Past And The Present

Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in Modern Europe

Altopascio: A Study in Tuscan Rural Society, 1587-1784 (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History)

Altopascio: A Study in Tuscan Rural Society, 1587-1784 (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History)

Religion and Society in Early Modern England; A Sourcebook

Religion and Society in Early Modern England: A Sourcebook

Water Reptiles of the Past and Present

Urania: A Romance (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe)

Water reptiles of the past and present

Declaring War in Early Modern Europe

Imagining Contagion in Early Modern Europe

The Peasants of Ottobeuren, 1487-1726: A Rural Society in Early Modern Europe (Past and Present Publications)

Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief (Past and Present Publications)

Biology, Medicine and Society 1840-1940 (Past and Present Publications)

The Origins of the English Gentry (Past and Present Publications)

The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe

Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama under the Early Stuarts (Past and Present Publications)

The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe

Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama under the Early Stuarts (Past and Present Publications)

Early Modern European Society

From Slavery to Feudalism in South-Western Europe (Past and Present Publications)

The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe

The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe

Warfare and Society in Europe: 1898 to the Present

The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe

Vico and the Transformation of Rhetoric in Early Modern Europe

Past, Present, and Fu

Climates: Past and Present

Past, Present and Future

Poems of the Past and the Present

Poems Of The Past And The Present

Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in Modern Europe

Altopascio: A Study in Tuscan Rural Society, 1587-1784 (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History)

Altopascio: A Study in Tuscan Rural Society, 1587-1784 (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History)

Religion and Society in Early Modern England; A Sourcebook

Religion and Society in Early Modern England: A Sourcebook

Water Reptiles of the Past and Present

Urania: A Romance (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe)

Water reptiles of the past and present

Declaring War in Early Modern Europe

Imagining Contagion in Early Modern Europe

Recommend Documents